DOCSLIB.ORG

REVIEWS Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (Eds.), The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REVIEWS Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (Eds.), The J. Linguistics 53 (2017), 441–459. c Cambridge University Press 2016 REVIEWS J. Linguistics 53 (2017). doi:10.1017/S0022226716000396 c Cambridge University Press 2016 First published online 29 November 2016 Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp. xiii + 333. Reviewed by TIAOYUAN MAO, Hunan University of Commerce &HONGBO SUN, Heze University The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax is a collection of thirteen papers from two workshops, held at the University of Southern California (20–21 February 2009) and the University of Stuttgart (10–12 June 2009). Edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and Florian Schäfer, this volume starts with an introduction by the editors, discussing the morphological concept ‘root’ from several perspectives in generative linguistics and outlining the themes addressed by the volume, in particular the relation between the syntactic and semantic properties of roots. These properties of roots and other word parts fall only within the scope of Minimalist syntax; outside Minimalism, it is different. For example, cartographic syntax (Maximalism) is word-based, and more precisely, feature- based, that is words in the lexicon could be seen as particular combinations of features (see Mao & Meng 2016: 921–924). This volume, in our view, is not intended to produce a ready-made answer to the question of what defines a root, but to bring together various views on the syntactic and semantic properties of roots. More specifically, when addressing the relation between syntactic structure and syntactic terminals, i.e. ‘word-like elements but not words’ (Berwick & Chomsky 2016: 90), the papers mainly explore the syntactic and semantic properties of roots with a focus on the following three aspects: (i) the isolated syntactic properties of roots; (ii) the interaction of root ontology (semantic properties) with the syntax of roots; and (iii) the interaction of roots with ‘phases’, sequences of operations resulting in vP or CP-like structures. The contributions by Víctor Acedo-Matellán & Jaume Mateu, Hagit Borer, Paolo Acquaviva, and Marijke De Belder, Noam Faust & Nicola Lampitelli concentrate on the isolated syntactic properties of roots. Acedo-Matellán & Mateu argue that the properties of roots depend on their syntactic position. That is, it is the structural position occupied by roots in the event or argument structure that determines their properties (including those properties which are related to meaning), rather than the conceptual meaning of roots contributing to syntactic operations. For example, Acedo-Matellán & Mateu propose that grammatical 441 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:34:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000396 JOURNALOFLINGUISTICS MANNER interpretation emerges whenever the root is adjoined to v, which is against the contributions by Artemis Alexiadou and Antje Roßdeutscher etc. in this volume. In the same vein, within the ‘Exo-skeletal approach’ (Borer 2005), syntactic structure provides a skeleton or template into which lexical items are inserted, Borer proposes that the categorial properties of roots emerge in the context of particular functional structure, and as a result of that structure. Functors such as v (verbalizer), n (nominalizer) and D (determiner), etc. are used to define the categorial space. In detail, the determiner D projects a phrasal structure, the determiner phrase (DP), and determines the domain of its complement as noun (N). When a root enters into the corresponding position within such an extended projection, it need not merge with a category label and can be recognized as an N-likep element, because the functor D defines the root as an N, such as [D [D [CDN π form]]]. Acquaviva, opposed to limiting the property of nominality directly to roots, argues that roots differ from nouns, and should not be stipulated as having the semantic function of nouns. Their function is to label the syntactic construction that corresponds to a noun; and lexical roots do not by themselves identify a concept, and what expresses a noun’s lexical semantics is always a syntactic construction. De Belder et al. assume that, cross-linguistically, diminutives can realize both functional and derivational heads. And the latter, without category of its own, is responsible for what would traditionally be seen as derivational morphology. The category functional head (nominalizer) partitions two different structural domains. Above the functional head and within its functional projection, it is a SizeP (Size Phrase) that realizes functional material and denotes compositional meaning. Below the category head, there exists a lexical head, which merges with the root and forms a LexP (Lexical Phrase), showing non-compositionally or idiosyncratic lexical meanings. These two positions can be filled simultaneously, and indepen- dently of each other. For instance, xazarzir-on ‘a small piglet’p in modern Hebrew (MH) can be analysed as [SizeP on [nP [LexP CVCaCCVlex C xzr]]]. This proposal is not restricted to nouns, and can also be used to analyse a verbal head. For example, fischi-ette-arep ‘whistle (PLURACTIONAL)’ in MH can be analysed as [v V [LexP [ette fischi]]]. In contrast, contributions by Artemis Alexiadou, Edit Doron, Lisa Levinson, Malka Rappaport Hovav and Antje Roßdeutscher support the interaction of root ontology (semantic properties) with the syntax of roots. Alexiadou argues that prefixes, e.g. afto- (self) in Greek, mirror the relation between root ontology and its interaction with syntax. More generally, the root ontology influences syntactic limitations on merger (structure building) environment. For instance, result roots enter as complements of verbalizers, such asp [vP v [Result Phrase]], while manner roots enter as modifiers of v, that is, [vP v [ Root [v]]]. Meanwhile, Alexiadou admits that the structural positions restrict the prefixation. For example, afto- triggers a reflexive interpretation only when it combines with a non-active structure of a causative predicate. 442 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:34:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000396 REVIEWS Doron investigates Hebrew adjectival passive participles constructed in the causative template. She distinguishes between dynamic roots (which form resul- tative participles) and stative roots (which form stative and resultative participles), and demonstrates that the only non-active form of causative-template verbs is the passive, a voice that obligatorily licenses an (implicit) external argument. Thus, the properties derived from roots influence their syntactic realization. Levinson specifically explores the connections between semantic and morpho- syntactic properties of roots, and shows that interaction between interpretation and morphosyntax can be derived from the semantic types of roots, which means that a root is not semantically vacuous in and of itself. For instance, a truly ‘root creation verb’ means that the theme is the material from whichp the created object is created. To build the English verb braid from a root ‘ braid’, we need to conflate the meaning ‘make ::: into a braid’ into the word. As a result, the created individual (argument) is denoted by the root rather than by the DP, and the semantic type of braid turns out to be <e, t> (from entity to truth value). In other words, genuine root creation verbs do not license the double object construction. Therefore, the semantic restrictions on composition lead to different structural environments for different types of roots. With reference to a scalar analysis of incremental theme verbs, change of state (COS) verbs and direct motion (DM) verbs, Rappaport Hovav argues that it is possible to isolate and explicate the grammatically relevant meaning components that are associated with a verbal root and determined in the lexicon. For example, for ascend, a DM verb with the location of the theme argument moving along a path, the stative scalar attribute is lexicalized by a preposition. More precisely, the path is specified as a rising one. Thus, we cannot say ‘The plane ascended from 3000 to 1000 meters’ on the grounds that lexicalized meaning components are entailed in the use of the verb. Starting with the question ‘How can the semantics of verbs be constructed from their roots?’, Roßdeutscher argues that the lexical meaning of roots can determine whether certain functional heads such as v (verbalizer), and a (adjectivizer) can select them as arguments, because roots have a semanticsp that is the source of argument structure. To cite eventive or manner roots like run as examples, they are simple event types, and thus directly selected by v. Ángel J. Gallego and Jean Lowenstamm discuss the interaction of phases with roots. To explore the setting of argument structure on the basis of phase theory, Gallego, follows Chomsky’s (2008) definition of ‘feature inheritance’, wherein phase heads such as C[omplementizer] or v [light verb] provide non-phase heads such as T[ense] with all their properties, i.e. category labels and phi-features ([uPerson] [uNumber] and [uGender]). Within this framework, Gallego proposes that argument structure is established after the categorial label merges or combines with a root. Furthermore, only the roots c-commanded by light verbs (v) with unvalued phi-features take syntactic arguments in terms of featural valuation, and the conceptual arguments are connected with the conceptual contexts of roots. For example,p a DP such as the city is semantically related to the conceptual content of the root (DE)STROY in all cases (destroy, destructive and destruction). 443 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 15:34:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interview with Noam Chomsky
    INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY Alessandro Boechat de Medeiros1 Avram Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned linguist, philosopher and political activist. He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and recently became a laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at University of Arizona. He has been the leader of the generative enterprise in linguistic theory since its beginning, in the late fifties, and is considered by many the father of modern Linguistics. In fact, his views have influenced the whole field and established points of departure for research in formal syntax, phonology and even semantics. Born in Philadelphia, in 1928, Chomsky started his undergraduate studies in Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Philadelphia, in 1945. He concluded his Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1955, under the supervision of Zellig Harris, at the same University, with the thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, a revolutionary work only published in 1975. Two years later, in 1957, he published Syntactic Structures (SS), one of his most famous linguistics books, considered by many a true revolution in the field. SS was in part based on The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, and exerted a great influence during late fifties and early sixties among language scholars, defining to a great extent linguistics research developed in the years to come. In 1959 he published his famous review of B. F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The review presents a frontal and exhaustive critique of the behaviorist theory in a general way and also focally regarding language. Chomsky had other defining theoretical debates with Philosopher Michel Foucault2 and with Psychologist Jean Piaget3.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Number Lies: Plural Marking, Numerals, and the Collective-Distributive Distinction
    i Where Number Lies: Plural marking, numerals, and the collective-distributive distinction by Sarah Ouwayda Submitted to the USC Graduate School In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at the University of Southern California 2014 Dissertation committee: Hagit Borer (Chair), Professor of Linguistics Irene Heim, Professor of Linguistics, Massachussets Institute of Technology Audrey Li, Professor of Linguistics and East Asian Languages and Cultures Roumyana Pancheva (Co-Chair), Associate Professor of Linguistics Kevin van Bladel, Associate Professor of Classics ii Dedication To Abboudeh, for the love of unanswered questions, And to Hodhod, for the love of crafting tools To both, for the longing to find answers iii Acknowledgements They say university years are the best time of your life. My experience so far is that this generalization is only true if you don’t go to grad school. The years I spent in grad school have been the most exciting, enriching, and intellectually stimulating years of my life. And I owe this to the professors, colleagues, and friends I had and those I encountered along the way. I will take the opportunity of finishing my thesis to publicly express my gratitude to and for these wonderful people who contributed to my training and shared the experience with me on three continents. First of all, I am extremely grateful to my wonderful committee members for their support and advising throughout the writing of this thesis. I would like to publicly express my immense gratitude to my Doktormutter, Hagit Borer, for being an amazing advisor, for her generosity, patience, and most of all, for her rigor: for making a linguist out of a very eager, and rather frightened, computer engineer.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae March, 2011 Hagit Borer Department of Linguistics University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693 USA [email protected] http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~borer Education: B.A. Tel-Aviv University, Israel (1977). Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1981). Academic Appointments (primary): 1981-82 Sloan Post-doctoral Fellow, University of California, Irvine 1982-86 Assistant Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Fall 1986-Spring 1990 Associate Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Fall 1990-Fall 1996 Professor of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Winter 1997-Present Professor of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Distinctions, Fellowships, Grants Sloan Post-doctoral Fellow, University of California, Irvine, 1981-1982 NSF Grant: The Maturation of Grammar (with Professor K. Wexler), 1985-87 ($281,333.00). Fellow, OTS, Utrecht University, January 1993. Belle van Zuylen Distinguished Visiting Chair Award, Utrecht University, Fall 2000 CV, Borer, March 2011 1/19 Visiting Fellow, CNRS, Paris, Summer 2004 (Poste Rouge ). Visions and Voices Award, 2009-2010 USC Melon Award for Graduate Student Mentoring, 2010 Visiting Appointments Fall 1984- Visiting Scholar, Linguistics Department, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Spring 1986- Visiting Professor, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Fall 1986- Visiting Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fall 1987- Visiting Professor, University College, London. Fall 1988- Visiting Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, London. 12/93-1/94- Visiting Professor, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Spring, 1995- Visiting Professor, Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Winter, 1997- Visiting Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Vienna, Vienna.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Structure and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. a Case Study in Latin and Other Languages
    Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages Víctor Acedo Matellán ADVERTIMENT. La consulta d’aquesta tesi queda condicionada a l’acceptació de les següents condicions d'ús: La difusió d’aquesta tesi per mitjà del servei TDX (www.tdx.cat) ha estat autoritzada pels titulars dels drets de propietat intel·lectual únicament per a usos privats emmarcats en activitats d’investigació i docència. No s’autoritza la seva reproducció amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva difusió i posada a disposició des d’un lloc aliè al servei TDX. No s’autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant al resum de presentació de la tesi com als seus continguts. En la utilització o cita de parts de la tesi és obligat indicar el nom de la persona autora. ADVERTENCIA. La consulta de esta tesis queda condicionada a la aceptación de las siguientes condiciones de uso: La difusión de esta tesis por medio del servicio TDR (www.tdx.cat) ha sido autorizada por los titulares de los derechos de propiedad intelectual únicamente para usos privados enmarcados en actividades de investigación y docencia. No se autoriza su reproducción con finalidades de lucro ni su difusión y puesta a disposición desde un sitio ajeno al servicio TDR. No se autoriza la presentación de su contenido en una ventana o marco ajeno a TDR (framing). Esta reserva de derechos afecta tanto al resumen de presentación de la tesis como a sus contenidos.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Special Issue on Parameters. Linguistic Analysis
    Introduction to the Special Issue on Parameters1 SIMIN KARIMI & MASSIMO PIATTELLI-PALMARINI University of Arizona 1. Introduction Suppose a child has to literally learn his/her mother language on the sole basis of positive evidence (no corrections are part of the process). Suppose that the grammar has 100 rules and that the child has to learn them all by “fine-tuning.” As an extreme idealization, suppose the child receives one new type of sentence every second. How long would it take for the child to accomplish this task that is, acquiring the correct grammar for the language? Robert Berwick (in a yet unpublished work) has made the calculation. The stunning answer: 150 centuries! 15,000 years! This can be called Berwick’s paradox. Even admitting, for the sake of prudence, that this calculation is inflated, that the cor- rect answer is orders of magnitude less, say, “only” 1,000 years, we are still wildly off what we know about real language acquisition. Something totally different must be going on. What? Our best guess is a schema based on Principles-and-parameters. Differences between languages are discrete, not continuous. There is a limited number of points of variation and, on each one of these, differences reduce only to the choice of a binary option (+ or -). A further idealization is that one single “signature sentence” (a trigger) (Gibson and Wexler, 1994) suffices to reveal which value (+/-) the local language has chosen. By being exposed to that sentence, the child instantly acquires the value of that parameter. Those signature sentences are triggers for acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Where, If Anywhere, Are Parameters? a Critical Historical Overview of Parametric Theory Frederick J
    Chapter 25 Where, if anywhere, are parameters? A critical historical overview of parametric theory Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University Since the late 1970s, crosslinguistic variation has generally been handled by means of UG- specified parameters. On the positive side, thinking of variation in terms of parameterized principles unleashed an unprecedented amount of work in comparative syntax, leading to the discovery of heretofore unknown morphosyntactic phenomena and crosslinguistic gen- eralizations pertaining to them. On the negative side, however, both macroparameters and microparameters have proven themselves to be empirically inadequate and conceptually nonminimalist. Alternatives to parameters are grounded approaches, epigenetic approaches, and reductionist approaches, the last two of which seem both empirically and conceptually quite promising. 1 Introduction The existence of crosslinguistic variation has always been problematic for syntacticians. If there is a universal grammar, one might ask, then why aren’t all languages exactly the same? In the earliest work in generative syntax, characterizing the space in which languages could differ, whether at the surface or at a deep level, was not a priority. At the time, surface differences between languages and dialects were generally attributed to language-particular rules or filters. In the late 1970s, however, a strategy was developed that allowed the simultaneous development of a rich theory of Universal Grammar (UG) along with a detailed account of the limits of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic variation. In this view, syntactic com- plexity results from the interaction of grammatical subsystems, each characterizable in terms of its own set of general principles. The central goal of syntactic theory now be- came to identify such systems and to characterize the degree to which they might vary (be “parameterized”) from language to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Noam Chomsky
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31513/linguistica.2017.v13n2a14025 INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY Alessandro Boechat de Medeiros1 Avram Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned linguist, philosopher and political activist. He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and recently became a laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at University of Arizona. He has been the leader of the generative enterprise in linguistic theory since its beginning, in the late fifties, and is considered by many the father of modern Linguistics. In fact, his views have influenced the whole field and established points of departure for research in formal syntax, phonology and even semantics. Born in Philadelphia, in 1928, Chomsky started his undergraduate studies in Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Philadelphia, in 1945. He concluded his Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1955, under the supervision of Zellig Harris, at the same University, with the thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, a revolutionary work only published in 1975. Two years later, in 1957, he published Syntactic Structures (SS), one of his most famous linguistics books, considered by many a true revolution in the field. SS was in part based on The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, and exerted a great influence during late fifties and early sixties among language scholars, defining to a great extent linguistics research developed in the years to come. In 1959 he published his famous review of B. F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The review presents a frontal and exhaustive critique of the behaviorist theory in a general way and also focally regarding language.
    [Show full text]
  • Noam Chomsky’S 90Th Birthday I
    Revolutionary New Ideas Appear Infrequently Essays for Noam Chomsky’s 90th Birthday I (Or Don’t They?) Collected & edited by Michael Schiffmann Tabula Gratulatoria 1. David Adger 2. Nicholas Allott 3. Adriana Belletti 4. Robert Berwick 5. Thomas Bever 6. Manfred Bierwisch 7. Akeel Bilgrami 8. Hagit Borer 9. Zeljko Boskovic 10. John Collins 11. Tecumseh Fitch 12. Robert Freidin 13. Angela Friederici 14. Naoki Fukui 15. Angel Gallego 16. Lila Gleitman 17. Peter Graff 18. Giorgio Graffi 19. Günther Grewendorf 20. Kleanthes K. Grohmann 21. Marc Hauser 22. Norbert Hornstein 23. Riny Huybregts 24. Ray Jackendoff 25. Samuel Jay Keyser 26. Howard Lasnik 27. David Lightfoot 28. James McGilvray 29. Matthias Mahlmann 30. Robert May 31. John Mikhail 32. Shigeru Miyagawa 33. Andrea Moro 34. Andrew Nevins 35. Frederick Newmeyer 36. Dennis Ott 37. Barbara Partee 38. Orin Percus 39. David Pesetsky 40. Jean-Yves Pollock 41. Eric Reuland 42. Luigi Rizzi 43. Ian Roberts 44. Tom Roeper 45. Anna Roussou 46. Michael Schiffmann 47. Neil Smith 48. Wolfgang Sperlich 49. Beverly Stohl 50. Patrick Trettenbrein 51. Juan Uriagereka 52. Deirdre Wilson 53. Dieter Wunderlich 54. Mihoko Zushi Introduction Chomsky at 90 – We’re Here for You, and You for Us by Michael Schiffmann As this project started to kick into high gear a couple of days ago and I sent the first results around to confirmed and po- tential contributors as well as some others, I received an ex- cited phone call by an ex- student who I had cc-d these first essays to: “Man, what are you doing again – this is some really, really crazy stuff!” Having myself gotten into this, I could hardly disagree, and I told Iwo that everything was go- ing well way beyond my expectations, with one excellent con- tribution after another reaching my mailbox day by day.
    [Show full text]