DOCSLIB.ORG

Peter Culicover's Curriculum Vitae, 2019-20

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CURRICULUM VITAE June 2020 PETER W. CULICOVER Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University Affiliate Professor, University of Washington Phone (cell): 614-361-4744 Email: [email protected] Primary research interests: Syntactic theory, constructions, typology, syntactic change, language learnability, English syntax, representation of language in the mind/brain, linguistics and cognitive science, computational simulation of language acquisition and language change, jazz. EDUCATION PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1971), Linguistics B.A. City College of NeW York (1966), Mathematics ACADEMIC POSITIONS HELD 2019- Affiliate Professor, University of Washington 2018- Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, OSU 2016-2018 Distinguished University Professor, The Ohio State University 2008 Professeur invité, Université de Paris VII (Feb-Mar 2008) 2006-7 Visiting Scholar, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen 2005- Humanities Distinguished Professor in Linguistics, The Ohio State University 2003 Linguistics Institute, Michigan State University (Summer 2003) 2002 Visiting Scientist, University of Groningen (Autumn 2002) 2000 Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of Tübingen (June 2000) 1998-2006 Chair, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University 1997 Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Venice (Spring 1997) 1991-92 Visiting Scientist, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT 1989-2003 Director, Center for Cognitive Science, The Ohio State University 1987- Professor, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University 1987-89 Associate Provost for Planning, The Ohio State University PETER W. CULICOVER-2 1986-87 Acting Dean, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona 1985-87 Director, Cognitive Science Program, University of Arizona 1984-87 Chair, Cognitive Science Committee, University of Arizona 1984-87 Head, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona 1984-87 Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona 1983-84 Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, University of California, Irvine 1981-82 Chair, Cognitive Science Group, UC Irvine 1980-84 Professor, University of California, Irvine 1975-80 Associate Professor, University of California, Irvine 1972-75 Director of Graduate Studies, School of Social Sciences, UC Irvine 1970-75 Assistant Professor, University of California, Irvine LANGUAGE COMPETENCE French: reading knowledge, basic speaking Italian: reading knowledge, basic speaking Spanish: basic speaking and reading German: speaking and reading knowledge Russian: reading knowledge RESEARCH GRANTS 2006-2008 Ohio State University College of Arts and Sciences. (Co-Principal Investigator, with John Grinstead and Laura Wagner). Interfaces of the mind: the development of language and its integration with other cognitive domains. (Arts and Humanities Innovation Grant). About $50,000. 2002 Nederlands Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderszoek (Co- Principal Investigator), Application of the Culicover/Nowak computational simulations of language acquisition and language change to problems of dialect contact and variation: about $7,500 (University of Groningen). 1998-2001 James F. McDonnell Foundation (Co-Principal Investigator), Dynamical grammar: dynamical systems modeling of language acquisition and language change: $143,000. 1995 NSF (Linguistics): Workshop on the Limits of Syntax (Co- Principal Investigator): $15,288 PETER W. CULICOVER - 3 1994 Office of Research Grant for Interdisciplinary Research Seminar on the Foundations of Consciousness (Co-Principal Investigator): $5,000 1985-86 Sloan Foundation Grant for Conference on Neural Connections and Mental Computation (Co-Principal Investigator): $14,000 1984-85 Sloan Foundation Grant for Cognitive Sciences State-of-the-Art Lecture Series: $4,500 1983-88 Sloan Foundation Grant for Cognitive Sciences (Co-Principal Investigator): $500,000 1980-83 Sloan Foundation Grant for Cognitive Sciences (Co-Principal Investigator): $410,000 1978-80 Sloan Foundation Grant for Cognitive Sciences (Co-Principal Investigator): approximately $175,000 1975-83 NSF (Linguistics): Acquisition constraints on theory of language structure (Co-Principal Investigator): approximately $203,000 OTHER GRANTS 2009-10 Ohio Humanities Council, $15,000 (Co-principal Investigator). Linguistics Institute for Language Teachers (LILT). FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS 2015 Erskine Visiting Fellowship, University of Canterbury 2011 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Departmental Teaching AWard, Department of Linguistics, OSU 2011 Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2010 Humboldt Research AWard (ReneWed Research Stay), Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany) 2009-10 Fellow, Linguistic Society of America 2009-10 University Distinguished Lecture, The Ohio State University 2008 Distinguished Scholar AWard, The Ohio State University 2005 Humboldt Research AWard, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany) 2005 Humanities Distinguished Professor in Linguistics, The Ohio State University 1997 Fulbright Distinguished Visiting Chair in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Venice 1978 NEH Fellowship for Independent Research PETER W. CULICOVER-4 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Linguistic Society of America (Life member) American Association for the Advancement of Science EDITOR, CONSULTANT, REFEREE, ETC. Editorial Board, French Review of English Linguistics (2012-) Program committee, Music and Language II: Tufts University, July 10-13, 2008 Associate Editor, Wiley Interdisciplinary RevieWs (WIREs) in Cognitive Science Editorial Board, Constructions Editorial Board, Syntax and Semantics, Brill RevieWer for Oxford University Press RevieWer for Cambridge University Press RevieWer for Academic Press RevieWer for Kluwer Academic Publishers Research Associate for ONR Grant, "A Theory Based Reading Program" Referee for NSF Referee for Language and Cognitive Processes Referee for Language Referee for Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Referee for Linguistics and Philosophy Referee for Journal of East Asian Linguistics Referee for Journal of Linguistics Advisory Editorial Board, Linguistic Inquiry, 1992-2009 Editor, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1999-2005 Advisory Editorial Board, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1999 Advisory Editorial Board, Annual Review of Language Acquisition, 2000- present Linguistics Editor, Macmillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Referee of abstracts for WCCFL, NELS, FLSM, WECOL, SCIL, JPA. PETER W. CULICOVER-5 PUBLICATIONS Books (in print) 1. Culicover, Peter W. (ed.) Special issue of Cognitive Science in honor of Ray Jackendoff’s Rumelhart Award. 2016. 2. Culicover, Peter W. Explaining Syntax: Representations, Structure and Computation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2013. 3. Culicover, Peter W. Grammar and Complexity: Language at the Intersection of Competence and Performance. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2013. 4. Culicover, Peter W., and Elizabeth Hume. Basics of Language for Language Learners. Ohio State University Press. 2010. 5. Culicover, Peter W. Natural Language Syntax. Oxford University Press. 2009. 6. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. 7. Culicover, Peter W. and Andrzej Nowak. Dynamical Grammar. Volume TWo of Foundations of Syntax. Oxford University Press. 2003. 8. Culicover, Peter W. and Paul M. Postal, eds. Parasitic Gaps. MIT Press. 2001. 9. Culicover, Peter W. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. Volume One of Foundations of Syntax. Oxford University Press. 1999. 10. Culicover, Peter W. and Louise McNally (eds.) The Limits of Syntax. Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on the Limits of Syntax, Center for Cognitive Science, The Ohio State University. December 9-10, 1995. Academic Press. 1998. PETER W. CULICOVER-6 11. Culicover, Peter W. Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1997. 12. Rochemont, Michael S. and Peter W. Culicover. English Focus Constructions and The Theory of Grammar, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 13. Nadel, Lynn, Lynn Cooper, Peter W. Culicover, and Robert M. Harnish, editors. Neural Connections and Mental Computations. Bradford Books. 1989. 14. Culicover, Peter W. and Wendy Wilkins. Locality in Linguistic Theory, Academic Press, 1984. 15. Wexler, Kenneth and Peter W. Culicover. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, 1980. 16. Culicover, Peter W., Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, (eds.). Formal Syntax: Proceedings of the MSSB-Irvine Conference on the Formal Syntax of Natural Language. Academic Press, 1977. 17. Culicover, Peter W. Syntax, Academic Press, 1976. (Second Edition, 1982. Japanese translation published by Orion Press.) Books (in press) Books (in preparation) Culicover, Peter W. Language Change, Variations and Universals -- A Constructional Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford. To appear. Culicover, Peter W. Deconstructing syntactic theory. Articles, (in print) 1. Culicover, Peter W. and Susanne Winkler. Why topicalize VP? In Architecture of Topic, ed. by Valeria Molnar, Verner Egeland and Susanne Winkler (eds). De Gruyter. 2019. PETER W. CULICOVER-7 2. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. Simpler Syntax. In Current approaches to syntax – a comparative handbook, edited by András Kertész, Csilla Rákosi, and Edith Moravcsik. Mouton de Gruyter. 2018. 3. Culicover, Peter W. and Susanne Winkler. Freezing: BetWeen grammar and processing.
Recommended publications
  • Structures in the Mind: Chap18

    Structures in the Mind: Chap18

    © 2015 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or informa- tion storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email [email protected]. edu. This book was set in Times by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Structures in the mind : essays on language, music, and cognition in honor of Ray Jackendoff / edited by Ida Toivonen, Piroska Csúri, and Emile van der Zee. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-02942-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Psycholinguistics. 2. Cognitive science. 3. Neurolinguistics. 4. Cognition. I. Jackendoff, Ray, 1945- honoree. II. Toivonen, Ida. III. Csúri, Piroska. IV. Zee, Emile van der. P37.S846 2015 401 ′ .9–dc23 2015009287 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 18 The Friar’s Fringe of Consciousness Daniel Dennett Ray Jackendoff’s Consciousness and the Computational Mind (1987) was decades ahead of its time, even for his friends. Nick Humphrey, Marcel Kinsbourne, and I formed with Ray a group of four disparate thinkers about consciousness back around 1986, and, usually meeting at Ray’s house, we did our best to understand each other and help each other clarify the various difficult ideas we were trying to pin down. Ray’s book was one of our first topics, and while it definitely advanced our thinking on various lines, I now have to admit that we didn’t see the importance of much that was expressed therein.
  • New Mexico State University

    New Mexico State University

    Financial Report Table of Contents Financial Statements and Schedules June 30, 2010 and 2009 Official Roster........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 President’s Letter .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Financial Statements Management’s Discussion and Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit A: Statement of Net Assets ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit B: Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets ........................................................................ 17 Exhibit C: Statement of Cash Flows .................................................................................................................................... 19 Notes to the Financial Statements ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Supplemental Schedules Schedule 1 - Combining Statement of Net Assets for
  • This Is a Review Article on Jackendoff's Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation (Henceforth, LM)

    This Is a Review Article on Jackendoff's Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation (Henceforth, LM)

    REVIEW ARTICLE Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation, by Ray Jackendoff, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992, ix+200pp. Reviewed by MITSUAKI YONEYAMA, Seikei University* 0. Introduction This is a review article on Jackendoff's Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation (henceforth, LM). LM is a collection of papers on semantics and cognition originally written independently within the framework of Conceptual Semantics. There is a certain amount of duplication in their contents, although we can see a consis- tent line of argument. And LM is not a book intended to present an alternative solution to a specific problem. In this paper, I will summa- rize the main points of LM and try to analyze verbs of motion within Conceptual Semantics. 1. Background LM is Jackendoff's fourth book on semantics and cognition. It is in order here to look back at his three previous books because most of the papers in LM are based on his previous books. In Semantics and Cognition (1983) (henceforth, SC), he regards semantics as independent of syntax. In his framework, syntax, seman- tics, and phonology each have their own structure and function. In SC, he mentions four requirements on semantic theory which have * This is a revised version of a paper read at the meeting of Tokyo University English Linguistic Circle in January 1994. Sections 4.1-4.3 are based on a part of a paper read at the symposium on lexical semantics in the 65th General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan held at the University of Tokyo in May 1993.
  • Cliff Notes: Research in Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania

    Cliff Notes: Research in Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Technical Reports (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science March 1992 CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania Faculty & Graduate Students University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports Recommended Citation Faculty & Graduate Students, "CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania", . March 1992. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MS-CIS-92-22. Edited by Barbara Di Eugenio and Libby Levison. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/480 For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania Abstract The Computational Linguistics Feedback Forum (CLIFF) is a group of students and faculty who gather once a week to discuss the members' current research. As the word "feedback" suggests, the group's purpose is the sharing of ideas. The group also promotes interdisciplinary contacts between researchers who share an interest in Cognitive Science. There is no single theme describing the research in Natural Language Processing at Penn. There is work done in CCG, Tree adjoining grammars, intonation, statistical methods, plan inference, instruction understanding, incremental interpretation, language acquisition, syntactic parsing, causal reasoning, free word order languages, ... and many other areas. With this in mind, rather than trying to summarize the varied work currently underway here at Penn, we suggest reading the following abstracts to see how the students and faculty themselves describe their work. Their abstracts illustrate the diversity of interests among the researchers, explain the areas of common interest, and describe some very interesting work in Cognitive Science.
  • May 2020 CURRICULUM VITAE Ray Jackendoff Center for Cognitive Studies Department of Philosophy Tufts University Medford, MA

    May 2020 CURRICULUM VITAE Ray Jackendoff Center for Cognitive Studies Department of Philosophy Tufts University Medford, MA

    May 2020 CURRICULUM VITAE Ray Jackendoff Center for Cognitive Studies Department of Philosophy Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 USA Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 Telephone: 617-484-5394 E-mail: ray (dot)jackendoff(at)tufts(dot)edu Born: Chicago, IL, 23 January 1945 Academic training 1961-65 Swarthmore College (mathematics honors) B.A. 1965 1965-69 M.I.T. (linguistics) Ph.D. 1969 Thesis advisor: Noam Chomsky Teaching 1969-70 UCLA Lecturer 1971-73 Brandeis University Assistant Professor 1973-78 Brandeis University Associate Professor 1978-2006 Brandeis University Professor (Chair of Linguistics Program, 1972-1981) (Chair of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, 1981-1992, 2002-2006) 2006- Brandeis University Professor Emeritus 2005-2017 Tufts University Seth Merrin Professor of Humanities (Co-director, Center for Cognitive Studies) 2018- Tufts University Seth Merrin Professor Emeritus 1969 (summer) University of Illinois (LSA Linguistic Institute) 1974 (summer) University of Massachusetts, Amherst (LSA Linguistic Institute) 1980 (summer) University of New Mexico (LSA Linguistic Institute) 1987 University of Arizona (Visiting Professor) 1989 (summer) University of Arizona (LSA Linguistic Institute) 1996 (summer) Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania 1999 (summer) University of Illinois (LSA Linguistic Institute) 2003 (summer) Michigan State University (Sapir Professor, LSA Linguistic Institute) 1 Research 1966 (summer) Technical Operations,
  • For Special Issue of Cognitive Science in Honor of Ray Jackendoff. 1 One

    For Special Issue of Cognitive Science in Honor of Ray Jackendoff. 1 One

    For special issue of Cognitive Science in honor of Ray Jackendoff. One among many: anaphoric one and its relationship to numeral one. Adele E. Goldberg & Laura A. Michaelis1 Abstract One anaphora (e.g., She has a better one) has been used as a key diagnostic in syntactic analyses of the English noun phrase, and ‘one-replacement’ has also figured prominently in debates about the learnability of language. However, much of this work has been based on faulty premises, as a few perceptive researchers, including Ray Jackendoff, have made clear. Abandoning the view of anaphoric one (A-ONE) as a form of syntactic replacement allows us to take a fresh look at various uses of the word one. In the present work, we investigate its use as a cardinal number (1-ONE) in order to better understand its anaphoric use. Like all cardinal numbers, 1-ONE can only quantify an individuated entity and provides an indefinite reading by default. Owing to unique combinatoric properties, cardinal numbers defy consistent classification as determiners, quantifiers, adjectives or nouns. Once the semantics and distribution of cardinal numbers including 1-ONE are appreciated, many properties of A-ONE follow with minimal stipulation. We claim that 1-ONE and A-ONE are distinct but very closely related lexemes. When 1- ONE appears without a noun (e.g., Take ONE), it is nearly indistinguishable from A- ONE (e.g., TAKE one)—the only differences being interpretive (1-ONE foregrounds its cardinality while A-ONE does not) and prosodic (presence versus absence of primary accent). While we ultimately argue that a family of constructions is required to describe the full range of syntactic contexts in which one appears, the proposed network accounts for properties of A-ONE by allowing it to share (inherit) most of its syntactic and interpretive constraints from its historical predecessor, 1- ONE.
  • Another Look at the Universal Grammar Hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014 Adele E

    Another Look at the Universal Grammar Hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014 Adele E

    200 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 92, NUMBER 1 (2016) quickly becomes evident that this is not a genuine tour de force, à la Pinker 1994. No, TLM is not the antidote to the long cognitivist nightmare that is The language instinct . In fact, by the end of the book, I fear it not only misses the point, but if adopted to any degree within the field, will also mislead young researchers and students of language into thinking that the debate is between E’s brand of linguistics on the one hand, and a bunch of raving, delusional, irrational bullies on the other. Ultimately, then, TLM will do little to advance the debate on linguistic nativism, although it might very well energize those already in E’s camp. REFERENCES Bickerton, Derek . 1981. The roots of language . Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. Bickerton, Derek . 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7.173–88. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00044149 . Crain, Stephen, and Mineharu Nakayama. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63.522–43. DOI: 10.2307/415004 . Evans, Vyvyan. 2014 . The language myth: Why language is not an instinct . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni - versity Press. Pinker , Steven . 1994. The language instinct . New York: William Morrow & Company. Department of Linguistics University of Hawai‘i at Manoa [[email protected]] Another look at the universal grammar hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014 Adele E. Goldberg Princeton University * It is important to recognize that The language myth (TLM ) is not a research monograph, but is instead aimed at a popular audience, and therefore it should be judged in this light.
  • 1 Publications of Ray Jackendoff Books Semantic

    1 Publications of Ray Jackendoff Books Semantic

    Publications of Ray Jackendoff Books Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, 1972 X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, 1977 A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (with Fred Lerdahl), MIT Press, 1982 (Spanish translation, Ediciones Akal, 2003) Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, 1983 (Italian translation, Il Mulino, 1989) Consciousness and the Computational Mind, Bradford/MIT Press, 1987 (Italian translation, Il Mulino, 1990; Spanish translation, Visor, 1998) Semantic Structures, MIT Press, 1990 (Korean translation, Hanshin Publishing Co., 2000) Languages of the Mind, Bradford/MIT Press, 1992 Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993 (Europe); Basic Books, 1994 (USA) (Natural Science Book Club selection, May 1994) Dutch translation, Het Spectrum, 1996; Italian translation, Il Mulino, 1998; Korean translation, Thaehaksa, 2000) The Architecture of the Language Faculty, MIT Press, 1997 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford University Press, 2002 Edited volumes Language, Logic, and Concepts: Essays in Memory of John Macnamara (co-edited with Paul Bloom and Karen Wynn), Bradford/MIT Press, 1999 Verb-Particle Explorations (co-edited with Nicole Dehé, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban), Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 Recording Romanian Music for Clarinet and Piano (with Valentina Sandu-Dediu, piano): works by Martian Negrea, Stefan Niculescu, Constantin Silvestri, and Dan Dediu. Bucharest: Editura Muzicala, 2002; Albany, NY: Albany Records, 2003 Articles 1968 a. An Interpretive Theory of Pronouns and Reflexives, Indiana University Linguistics Club b. Quantifiers in English, Foundations of Language 4.4, 422-442. 1969 a. Some Rules of Semantic Interpretation for English, MIT doctoral dissertation b. An Interpretive Theory of Negation, Foundations of Language 5.2, 218-241.
  • Pinker & Jackendoff (2005

    Pinker & Jackendoff (2005

    Cognition 97 (2005) 211–225 www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT Discussion The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky)* Ray Jackendoffa, Steven Pinkerb,* aDepartment of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, USA bCenter for Cognitive Studies, Department of philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA Received 17 March 2005; accepted 12 April 2005 Abstract In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language, we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the language faculty (the “narrow language faculty”) consists only of recursion, and that this part cannot be considered an adaptation to communication. We argue that their characterization of the narrow language faculty is problematic for many reasons, including its dichotomization of cognitive capacities into those that are utterly unique and those that are identical to nonlinguistic or nonhuman capacities, omitting capacities that may have been substantially modified during human evolution. We also question their dichotomy of the current utility versus original function of a trait, which omits traits that are adaptations for current use, and their dichotomy of humans and animals, which conflates similarity due to common function and similarity due to inheritance from a recent common ancestor. We show that recursion, though absent from other animals’ communications systems, is found in visual cognition, hence cannot be the sole evolutionary development that granted language to humans. Finally, we note that despite Fitch et al.’s denial, their view of language evolution is tied to Chomsky’s conception of language itself, which identifies combinatorial productivity with a core of “narrow syntax.” An alternative conception, in which combinatoriality is spread across words and constructions, has both empirical advantages and greater evolutionary plausibility.
  • Universal Grammar: Ray Jackendoff Versus Noam Chomsky

    Universal Grammar: Ray Jackendoff Versus Noam Chomsky

    28 ANDRZEJ KRZYSZTOF ROGALSKI UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR: RAY JACKENDOFF VERSUS NOAM CHOMSKY Summary The most Controversial aspeCt of generative grammar of ChomsKy was a hypothesis that humans have a speCifiC Cognitive innate struCture in language aCquisition, Called afterwards the Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis. That approach was consequently sustained by him in Syntactic Struc- tures , Aspects of The Theory of Syntax , and The Minimalist Program. In faCt, ChomsKy’s analytiC attention was mostly foCused on the struCture of the syntax of language, that in turn is to generate different phonologiCal struCtures as well as semantiC ‘interpretation’ respeCtively . Identifying of UG with a deep-struCture level of a language did not influenCed in solving a problem of innate Cognitive struCture of humans. Ray JaCKendoff, grown up among the generativists, does not share the ‘syntaCtoCentriC’ approaCh of ChomsKy proposing the ‘parallel arChiteCture’ in whiCh phonologiCal, syntaCtiC and semantiC levels are reCiproCally interfaCed in the program of ‘biolinguistiCs’ that is to enCourage the neCessary Culture of inter-sCientifiC Collaboration. By means of his theory of ConCeptual semantiCs JaCKendoff tries to show that a system of ConCepts expressed in human lan- guage is an autonomous generative Component of human brain/mind that proCessed out of evolution. Summarized by Andrzej Krzysztof Rogalski Sowa kluczowe: Noam ChomsKy, gramatyKa uniwersalna, Ray JaCKendoff, filoZofia jBZyKa. Key words: Noam ChomsKy, universal grammar, Ray JaCKendoff, philosophy of language. Information about Author: Dr. hab. A NDRZEJ KRZYSZTOF ROGALSKI – Assistant Professor in the Institute of SoCiology at the Cardinal Stefan WysZynsKi University in Warsaw; address for CorrespondenCe: WydZia NauK HistoryCZnyCh i SpoeCZnyCh UKSW, ul.
  • Multiword Constructions in the Grammar

    Multiword Constructions in the Grammar

    Topics in Cognitive Science (2017) 1–17 Copyright © 2017 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN:1756-8757 print / 1756-8765 online DOI: 10.1111/tops.12255 This article is part of the topic “More than Words: The Role of Multiword Sequences in Language Learning and Use,” Morten H. Chrisiansen and Inbal Arnon (Topic Editors). For a full listing of topic papers, see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/ (ISSN)1756-8765/earlyview Multiword Constructions in the Grammar Peter W. Culicover,a Ray Jackendoff,b Jenny Audringc aDepartment of Linguistics, The Ohio State University bDepartment of Philosophy, Tufts University cCenter for Linguistics, Leiden University Received 29 August 2015; received in revised form 13 March 2016; accepted 16 May 2016 Abstract There is ample evidence that speakers’ linguistic knowledge extends well beyond what can be described in terms of rules of compositional interpretation stated over combinations of single words. We explore a range of multiword constructions (MWCs) to get a handle both on the extent of the phenomenon and on the grammatical constraints that may govern it. We consider idioms of various sorts, collocations, compounds, light verbs, syntactic nuts, and assorted other construc- tions, as well as morphology. Our conclusion is that MWCs highlight the central role that gram- mar plays in licensing MWCs in the lexicon and the creation of novel MWCs, and they help to clarify how the lexicon articulates with the rest of the grammar. Keywords: Lexicon; Constructions; Idioms; Syntactic nuts; Collocations; Compounds; Morphology; Grammatical rules 1. Introduction We take it as given that any description of a language must account for the fact that there are stored (lexical) expressions that consist of more than one word.
  • Language As Instinct: a Socio-Cultural Perspective (A Review Essay) the Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker

    Language As Instinct: a Socio-Cultural Perspective (A Review Essay) the Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker

    UCLA Issues in Applied Linguistics Title Language as Instinct: A Socio-Cultural Perspective (a review essay) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker. New York: William Morrow, 1994. Pp. 494. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4g54k3bh Journal Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7(2) ISSN 1050-4273 Author Nordlund, David E. C. Publication Date 1996-12-30 DOI 10.5070/L472005247 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Language as Instinct: A Socio-Cultural Perspective (a review essay) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker. New York: William Morrow, 1994. Pp. 494. Reviewed by David E. C. Nordlund University of California, Los Angeles Note to the reader: Issues in Applied Linguistics invites your commentary on The Language Instinct. In our next issues we will publish selected responses to this review. Please submit your essays to Beth Gregory, Book Review Editor, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 3300 Rolfe Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1531. INTRODUCTION Steven Tinker's The Language Instinct (1994) will, for some time to come, continue to provoke lively discussion among readers of varied backgrounds. Most issues concerned with language, regardless of intellectual discipline, will spark debate and even division: bilingualism and education, the nationalization of the English language in the United States, race relations, religious discourse, etc. The dialectic value of language as either a mechanism of unification or one of separat- ism is geographically ubiquitous. While a significant number of Americans lobby for the nationalization of English, the citizens of Quebec narrowly voted in favor of remaining a part of English-speaking Canada, though they will never cease to speak French as their mother tongue.