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]

This article argues that there is no narrow syntax, and that the language faculty merely consists of the semantic and phonological components, and linking between these and other systems. It follows as a logical consequence from the latest works of Chomsky (2007 et seq.) and Hauser et al. (2002) who argue that narrow syntax consists of as few features as possible, ideally only recursive embedding and mapping to the interfaces, and Nordström (2014) who shows that the language faculty cannot involve recursive embedding if one wants it to be able to handle discrete infinity, but must merely be a discrete combinatorial system. As such, it shares features with many other mental processes, such as tool making, and, this paper argues, should not be seen as a separate module. The discrete combinatorial processes, as argued here, take place in the semantic and phonological components, which are linked by an axonal pathway. The paper further shows that other potential features of narrow syntax, namely word order, agreement and case (Pinker and Jackendoff 2005; Chomsky 2000 et seq.) can also perfectly well be located within the semantic and phonological components, dispensing with so-called uninterpretable features and leading to the ultimate conclusion that there is no narrow syntax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Verhagen's thesis on the relative order of nominal arguments and sentence adverbials in the middle field of the clause argued that the order variation found in Dutch can be described in a more insightful way within a functional approach than within a formal, generative grammar. This was true in the 1980s, when generative grammar was concerned with competence only. In current generative grammar, however, the output of the computational system is interpreted and filtered by the performance systems, which opens the possibility of formally accounting for certain aspects of meaning and intonation. I will argue that this refutes Verhagen's claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Breton, a language rich in compounds with both initial and final heads, provides a unique opportunity to study the relation between the head of a compound and the meaning of the compound. A novel approach is proposed. The relation between the head and the meaning of a compound is captured by the distinction between grammatical and logical head. The grammatical head determines the syntax of the compound. It gives the grammatical category of the compound and is the locus of inflection. The logical head is determined by the logical relation between the two terms of the compound. When the grammatical head corresponds to the logical head, we have endocentricity. When the grammatical head does not correspond to the logical head, we have exocentricity. In the latter case the head is grammatical or logical; hence there are no headless compounds. The concept of grammatical and logical head can also be applied to derivation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

Abstract: This article considers to what extent sample based typological research may shed light on questions of central concern within the minimalist program of generative grammar. Focusing on the nature of the structure building operation assumed within the minimalist program (Merge), it is argued that typological data may be relevant to the question whether the product of Merge, a pair of sisters, is symmetric or asymmetric. To this end, a case study is presented showing a fundamental and universal asymmetry between the members of a binary noun phrase coordination, such that the relation between the two conjuncts is invariably marked on the second conjunct. Assuming coordination to present the product of ‘pure Merge’ (i.e. undisturbed by further movement operations or rearrangements of any other kind), the result suggests that Merge creates an asymmetric sister pair, in which linear order and morphological dependency marking are consistently patterned. The article argues that this is generally the case in contexts of ‘restricted syntax’, which might equally well be studied using large typological samples. The article furthermore argues that the asymmetry between members of sister pairs involves both phonological and semantic dependence, suggesting that the asymmetry originates within the central syntactic component of grammar. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

The article presents grammar and languages and syntax in the "Minimalist syntax" and "Core syntax" textbooks. It states that although the Minimalist Program has opened up new research avenues for Principles and Parameters theory, it has left the analytical part of the theory in poor condition. The theoretical flaws in the mentioned textbooks are symptomatic of problems in the Minimalist Program at large and the books are used to look for underlying problems with the programmatic Minimalist approach to P&P theory.

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]

I propose a phrasal-movement analysis of word order in Hebrew and Arabic noun phrases. I argue that the positioning of nominal modifiers with respect to the head of simple nouns cannot be adequately handled by an N-raising derivation. This is so because nouns fail to move as heads in the grammars of Hebrew and Arabic. The only heads that seem to be able to move are those which do not assign genitive case. When modifiers (adjectives, numerals, demonstratives, etc.) appear to the right of the noun, it is the noun phrase itself which has raised to the left of the modifier, moving from specifier to specifier and pied piping all the material on its right. In this manner, inverse or mirror image ordering of post-nominal material is accounted for. Some modifiers have the option of appearing pre-nominally as well as post-nominally. I argue that these elements can be merged either as heads governing their complement and assigning genitive case to their sister or to the specifier of their sister, or as specifiers of projections containing a phonetically null head. In the former case, the modifier's sister is frozen in position, being licensed by genitive case. In the latter case, XP-movement of the sister of the null head is triggered, and agreement or concord is manifested on the modifier. I develop a configurational theory of agreement, which accounts for these phenomena. Many of the signature properties of the Semitic Construct-state fall out from the phrasal movement analysis. Finally, action nominalizations are dealt with. I provide arguments for a syntactic derivation in which a VP is associated with a nominalizing head configured in the clausal hierarchy as a functional head. I show that the position of the nominalizing head is above certain aspectual projections and lower than others. This explains why some adverbials, but not others, may occur inside a derived nominal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the introduction of the X-bar principles in syntax it is commonly assumed that adpositions are complement-taking heads of PPs. While this treatment is well motivated for many adpositions in many languages, there are some which – in some of their uses – would be better treated as nonhead daughters of verbal or nominal projections. These exceptional adpositions, which I will henceforth call 'minor', are the central topic of the article: I will provide criteria for their identification, propose a detailed treatment of the constructions which contain them, and address the question of whether they form a natural class. The wider significance of the analysis consists in the evidence which it provides against the wide-spread practice of treating function words as heads of phrasal projections. This practice, which is mainly associated with Chomsky (1986) and which has led to the postulation of a plethora of functional projections, including CP, DetP, and InflP, is not well suited to a treatment of the minor adpositions and should be replaced with an alternative in which these adpositions are treated as functor daughters in verbal or nominal projections. The analysis draws on various types of descriptive and formal grammar, as well as on corpus-based research, but the format in which it is cast is the constraint-based lexicalist one of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar; see Pollard and Sag (1994). A brief introduction to the HPSG notation is provided in section 2.2. The exemplification will be based on Dutch, but at various points comparisons will be made with English and German. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]