Search

Although there is a broad consensus that both the procedural and declarative memory systems play a crucial role in language learning, use, and knowledge, the mapping between linguistic types and memory structures remains underspecified: by default, a dual‐route mapping of language systems to memory systems is assumed, with declarative memory handling idiosyncratic lexical knowledge and procedural memory handling rule‐governed knowledge of grammar. We experimentally contrast the processing of morphology (case and aspect), syntax (subordination), and lexical semantics (collocations) in a healthy L1 population of Polish, a language rich in form distinctions. We study the processing of these four types under two conditions: a single task condition in which the grammaticality of stimuli was judged and a concurrent task condition in which grammaticality judgments were combined with a digit span task. Dividing attention impedes access to declarative memory while leaving procedural memory unaffected and hence constitutes a test that dissociates which types of linguistic information each long‐term memory construct subserves. Our findings confirm the existence of a distinction between lexicon and grammar as a generative, dual‐route model would predict, but the distinction is graded, as usage‐based models assume: the hypothesized grammar–lexicon opposition appears as a continuum on which grammatical phenomena can be placed as being more or less "ruly" or "idiosyncratic." However, usage‐based models, too, need adjusting as not all types of linguistic knowledge are proceduralized to the same extent. This move away from a simple dichotomy fundamentally changes how we think about memory for language, and hence how we design and interpret behavioral and neuroimaging studies that probe into the nature of language cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two kinds of theoretical framework for syntax are encountered in current linguistics. One emerged from the mathematization of proof theory, and is referred to here as generative-enumerative syntax ( GES). A less explored alternative stems from the semantic side of logic, and is here called model-theoretic syntax ( MTS). I sketch the outlines of each, and give a capsule summary of some mathematical results pertaining to the latter. I then briefly survey some diverse types of evidence suggesting that in some ways MTS seems better suited to theorizing about the relevant linguistic phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the main tenets of transformational grammar is that movement processes affect heads and phrases in different ways. In this article, I argue against this claim and propose that heads should be allowed to move in the same way as phrases. Conceptually, this proposal is the logical consequence of a common set of assumptions about syntax in general and movement in particular. Empirically, it finds support in the Spanish predicate cleft construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the grammatical constructions referred to as raising and control. Raising and control have been central concerns of generative syntax since the 1960s. Peter Rosenbaum's book "The grammar of English predicate complement constructions," proposed the seminal generative account of raising and control constructions.

Historically, control in generative grammar has fallen within the province of syntactic theory. One primary reason for this is that Mainstream Generative Grammar (MGG) has imposed a strong uniformity criterion on analyses as a measure of their explanatory adequacy. One aspect of this uniformity criterion, which we call Interface Uniformity, holds that the syntax-semantics interface is maximally simple, in that meaning maps transparently into syntactic structure, and that it is maximally uniform, so that the same meaning always maps into the same syntactic structure. It follows from Interface Uniformity that a nonfinite VP has a syntactic subject that is assigned its external θ-role. We argue that this view is most sustainable if one does not take into account the full richness and complexity of control phenomena, but treats control strictly in terms of complementation. When a fuller range of phenomena is taken into account, it appears that it is preferable to "turn over control" to the semantics, which is better equipped to capture the facts. We outline how to formulate the syntax-semantics interface so as to get the semantic facts to line up properly with the syntactic facts. This analysis of the interface extends naturally to raising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Control has played an important role in theoretical debates within the Minimalist Program. This is so because control implicates notions such as module, θ-role, the Last Resort nature of syntactic operations, movement, binding, chains, Case, complementation, and more. Hornstein (1999) has controversially claimed that control is a subspecies of movement. That is, control is just like familiar instances of raising, except that it involves movement into an additional θ-position. If correct, the movement analysis has important conceptual and empirical repercussions, some of which are examined here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper defends three interconnected claims: (a) selection is the only licensing procedure available to UG, specifically, checking is an instance of selection; (b) selection obtains in the mutual c-command configuration; and (c) though a head does not mutually c-command its own specifier, it mutually c-commands the specifier of its complement. A head may therefore license the specifier of its complement (as well as its complement) but not its own specifier (it is not local enough). This effectively eliminates the spec-head configuration from the repertoire of syntactic configurations, in favor of a unified notion of locality strictly identifiable with mutual c-command, a symmetric configuration. The discussion shows that a theory that collapses these distinctions remains empirically discriminating. The resulting theory is therefore genuinely reductionist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]