DOCSLIB.ORG

Minimalism and the Design of the Language Faculty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minimalism and the Design of the Language Faculty Minimalism and the Design of the Language Faculty Iain Jerome Mobbs Downing College April 2015 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Cambridge © Copyright Iain Mobbs 2015 Minimalism and the Design of the Language Faculty Iain J. Mobbs SUMMARY This dissertation explores the cognition underlying the knowledge, use, and acquisition of human language: the faculty for language, or language faculty (FL). In particular, it examines the validity and utility of the set of related, but logically independent, proposals comprising the argument of linguistic Minimalism (LM). These proposals define an atheoretic research program for linguistic enquiry, the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (MP) (Chomsky 1993), as well as introducing specific claims about the status of linguistic variation and the FL’s broader role in human cognition. Chapter 1 defends the existence of a coherent subject matter for ‘biolinguistic’ enquiry of this kind. Chapter 2 attempts to clarify those Minimalist proposals which comprise the MP, and to present their compulsory logic; it offers an explicit, if partial, framework for Minimalist research, based around principles of algorithmic science. Chapter 3 argues for the validity of the substantive hypotheses of LM; in particular, it defends the largely ancestral nature of humans’ conceptual-intentional apparatus and proposes a particular characterization of permissible syntactic variation, introducing a novel analysis of discourse pro-drop as part of the argument. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the evidence for the implication of Minimalist notions of optimality and ‘interface conditions’ in the design of the FL. In doing so, these chapters offer new suggestions regarding the motivation for lexical categories, phase-based spell-out (Chomsky 2001), and abstract Case. Chapter 6 focuses on the status of the parser in LM, suggesting that parsing relies heavily on computationally- optimized cognition and defending a close relationship between syntactic grammar and the parser. The chapter goes on to motivate a (limited) parsing-based account of the linearisation of abstract syntactic structure and to offer an explanation for the Final-over-Final-Constraint (Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts 2014). Chapter 7 suggests that we think about language acquisition in terms of parsing with an over- complete grammar, rather than as determining the settings of an under-specified, defective grammar; this allows us to fill a major lacuna in Yang’s (1999 et seq.) well-supported, variationist model of language acquisition (shown to be interpretable as the reflex of a domain-general principle of data analysis). The chapter also proposes that diachronic evidence of ‘conservative’ acquisition (e.g. the prevalence of grammaticalisation, “featural economy” (Clements 2003), and the gradual relaxation of the contexts for phonological rules) plausibly reflects concern for optimality in the process of acquisitional parsing. On the other hand, the prevalence of analogical forces in language change is presented as the footprint of ‘liberal’, computationally-constrained data analysis, attested in acquisitional tasks across cognitive domains. Chapter 8 begins with an account of the evolutionary origins of non-referential, conceptually “promiscuous” lexical meaning, and it goes on to suggest that the machinery grounding lexical semantics also affords our capacity for metaphorical thought, our rich theory of others, and our reflective nature (sometimes called ‘the human condition’): it argues that the FL is even more intimately related with what it means to be human than already assumed. Chapter 9 concludes. i DECLARATION This dissertation is the result of my own work, and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration with others, except where specifically stated in the text and acknowledgements. This dissertation is not substantially the same as any submitted for a degree, diploma, or other qualification at the University of Cambridge, or at any other university or similar institution. This dissertation is 79,975 words long, including all footnotes, references, and appendices, but excluding the bibliography. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I’ve been given so much help, by so many people, that I can’t establish the distance to appreciate it any more. I do realise I’ve been unusually lucky though, and that I need other people. Language really isn’t built for expressing gratitude, but it’ll have to do. Ian Roberts and Theresa Biberauer have been wonderful supervisors: they got me interested in linguistics, and every time I speak to them I become more interested. I remember Theresa’s first lecture very clearly – understanding for the first time that ‘knowledge’ is something produced and insisted on by people, rather than a series of epiphanies. I guess that’s what you call making a discipline come alive. The first time I met Ian, as a first-year undergraduate, was when he troubled to introduce himself to me; that first impression has been persistently reinforced. After years of their supervision, I occasionally feel able to work on my own, but I always (nervously) want to know what they think – because it’s worth days of my fumbling – and they invariably spare the time to let me know, in the most constructive way. (The usual provisos apply about the content here of course.) They have been very supportive in the ways that matter most too: I’m deeply grateful. The Department of Theoretical & Applied Linguistics at Cambridge is quite a disparate entity, but many extremely clever and decent people study, teach, and work in it. Bert Vaux (possibly without knowing) gave me a new perspective on many issues in linguistics: in particular, he helped me realise that you can study language in a number of different ways, with a number of different interests, and do so without contradiction: a pretty fundamental point, but often missed. I have also learnt a great deal from him about assessing the value of claims in terms of their predictions. James Clackson (actually a member of the Faculty of Classics) was my first DoS at ii Jesus College and allowed me to change course from Natural Sciences to Linguistics; I suspect many other DoSes wouldn’t have been so supportive and I will always be much indebted. I’m also very grateful to Francis Nolan: for his early support as the Head of Department when I first started linguistics, and for allowing me to study part-time early in my PhD. He also supervised my first attempt at independent research and immediately made me feel like I had every right to try. Michelle Sheehan has never formally taught me, but every time I’ve sat in a room with her she’s said something to me think harder. She’s also been very kind in answering questions, sending me papers, explaining her thoughts, etc.: showing me that the idealized notion of academic dialogue is possible. Jenneke van der Waal (again, possibly without realising) always reminds me that linguistics involves attention to languages, all of which are born equal, and so not to put theory before data. What’s more, her obvious sincerity and empathy always lift my spirits. I’m also very aware and appreciative of the support given by the department’s non-teaching staff, particularly: Ulrike Balser, Alison Bingham, Siobhán Carew, Rachel Deadman, Ariel Knapman, and Louise Radok. Life would have been very much harder without them. There has always been a number of intimidatingly bright (and humble) students in DTAL at any given time, and it’s been a privilege to be allowed to learn with/from them. Alison Biggs, Neil Myler, and George Walkden are all obviously exceptional (though they wouldn’t think that way of themselves), and I’m not remotely surprised by their early success. I like them all enormously and wish them all the very best of luck; if there is a ‘field’, with an overarching interest in addressing linguistic questions, it would do well to invest in them. (I’m not certain there is, but fortunately they are talented enough that it won’t matter.) Many others, whose thinking I’m not so familiar with, have enriched supervisions, seminars, reading groups, etc., and made for great company, including: Alastair Appleton, András Bárány, Tim Bazalgette, Alice Corr, Chi-Hé Elder, Chris Lucas, Elena Pala, Joe Perry, and Jeffrey Watumull. Emma Game was more or less the only linguistics student I had to talk to as an undergraduate, and although she left Cambridge six years ago, I still catch myself hoping she’ll be in the library. Beyond its work, I don’t know the linguistics community outside Cambridge particularly well. I have sent a lot of e-mails asking questions though, and received a lot of very helpful replies. Regarding the content included here, I’m very grateful for replies received from: Marijke de Belder, Matthew Dryer, Richie Kayne, Andrea Moro, Andrew Nevins, Luigi Rizzi, Bridget Samuels, Halldór Sigurðsson, and Charles Yang. Again, the usual provisos apply. Noam Chomsky also replied very helpfully to several e-mails, which, again, I’m very grateful for. I know he has no liking for veneration, but this is my acknowledgements section and his work has made a big impact on me. It’s not just that his arguments are beautifully reasoned and that his iii conclusions are fascinating, but that they show an honest and humble approach to enquiry: there isn’t any dissembling or ego in his work, nor any of the nervous arrogance or ‘goal-hanging’ of so much academic work. It’s just someone thinking really hard because they choose to, reporting what they didn’t learn as well as what they did, and never concealing the contribution of others. That’s hard not to admire. It’s easy to see why Chomsky’s contribution is resented, and how people become trapped in their instinctive opposition, but the amount of work dismissing his conclusions without ever engaging with his arguments is plain embarrassing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Irrelevance of Transformational Grammar to Second Language Pedagogy
    ON THE IRRELEVANCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR TO SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY John T. Lamendella The University of Michigan Many scholars view transformational grammar as an attempt to represent the structure of linguistic knowledge in the mind and seek to apply transformational descriptions of languages to the de- velopment of second language teaching materials. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational gram- mar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition. One may well wish to describe the ab- stract or logical structure of a language by constructing a trans- formational grammar which generates the set of sentences identi- fied with that language. However, this attempt should not be con- fused with an attempt to understand the cognitive structures and processes involved in knowing or using a language. It is a cogni- tive theory of language within the field of psycholinguistics rather than a theory of linguistic description which should underlie lan- guage teaching materials. A great deal of effort has been expended in the attempt to demonstrate the potential contributions of the field of descriptive linguistics to the teaching of second languages and, since the theory of transformational grammar has become the dominant theory in the field of linguistics, it is not surprising that applied linguists have sought to apply transformational grammar to gain new in- sights into the teaching of second languages. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational grammar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Minimalism Minimalism Is the Name of the Predominant Approach In
    Minimalism Minimalism is the name of the predominant approach in generative linguistics today. It was first introduced by Chomsky in his work The Minimalist Program (1995) and has seen several developments and changes since. The central idea of minimalism is that a linguistic theory should contain as few non-derived assumptions as possible. Many notions that had been developed in earlier generative theory, specifically the Government & Binding theory (GB), have been abandoned, in an attempt to derive them from more basic concepts. In Chomsky's (1995) view, minimalism is an implementation of the more general Principles and Parameters model. According to this language model, the human language capacity consists of a set of universal principles combined with a set of parameters. The principles are thought to be innate, which means that every language adheres to them. The parameters can be thought of as switches that can be set in two positions. Learning the syntax of one's native language, according to Chomsky's view, is a matter of acquiring the correct parameter settings for the language. Chomsky describes syntax as a cognitive system that connects two other cognitive systems: the conceptual-intentional system and the articulatory-perceptual system. Because syntax is linked to these two systems, the syntactic model defines two interface levels, one for each of them: Phonological Form (PF) is the interface to the articulatory-perceptual system, and Logical Form (LF) is the interface to the conceptual-intentional system. The grammar model is built up as follows: a clause is derived by selecting a set of lexical items from the lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • Generative Linguistics Within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Alec Marantz
    Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language Alec Marantz Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT Standard practice in linguistics often obscures the connection between theory and data, leading some to the conclusion that generative linguistics could not serve as the basis for a cognitive neuroscience of language. Here the foundations and methodology of generative grammar are clarified with the goal of explaining how generative theory already functions as a reasonable source of hypotheses about the representation and computation of language in the mind and brain. The claims of generative theory, as exemplified, e.g., within Chomsky’s (2000) Minimalist Program, are contrasted with those of theories endorsing parallel architectures with independent systems of generative phonology, syntax and semantics. The single generative engine within Minimalist approaches rejects dual routes to linguistic representations, including possible extra-syntactic strategies for semantic structure-building. Clarification of the implications of this property of generative theory undermines the foundations of an autonomous psycholinguistics, as established in the 1970’s, and brings linguistic theory back to the center of a unified cognitive neuroscience of language. 2 1. The place of linguistics* The first decade of the 21st century should be a golden era for the cognitive neuroscience of language. Fifty years of contemporary linguistic analysis of language can be coupled with a wide range of brain imaging and brain monitoring machines to test hypotheses and refine theory and understanding. However, there is still a gulf between mainstream linguistics within the generative linguistic tradition and most of those engaged in experimental cognitive neuroscience research. Some have argued that the fault here lies with the linguists, whose generative theories are based in principle on separating the study of linguistic representations from research on the acquisition and use of language in the minds and brains of speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Features from Aspects Via the Minimalist Program to Combinatory Categorial Grammar
    Á. Gallego & D. Ott (eds.). 2015. 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Available for purchase at http://mitwpl.mit.edu © The Authors FEATURES FROM ASPECTS VIA THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM TO COMBINATORY CATEGORIAL GRAMMAR NEIL SMITH ANNABEL CORMACK University College London 1 Background One major contribution of Aspects (Chomsky 1965)1 was to initiate the development of a theory of syntactic features. There is no use of features, either syntactic or morphophonemic, in Chomsky’s earliest work The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew (1951/79); they do not appear in his monumental The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955/75); nor in Syntactic Structures (1957) (except for category labels); nor, except for phonological distinctive features, in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964). In Aspects features play a crucial role. Chomsky suggests (p.214) that “We might, then, take a lexical entry to be simply a set of features, some syntactic, some phonological, some semantic”. But even here the use of features was somewhat haphazard, apparently unconstrained, and a terminological mess. In this contribution we want to trace – in broad outline – the development of a theory of morphosyntactic features and propose a fully Merge-based and parsimonious version of such a theory. Our work is intended as a contribution to Chomsky’s Minimalist Program, pursuing the same ends on the basis of some different background assumptions. These assumptions and the specific analyses derived from them have been developed using an austere version of Combinatorial Categorial Grammar, but are of wider applicability. All current theories use phonological features and ‘semantic’ features which we will largely ignore except to point out that the term ‘semantic’ is used in radically different ways to cover truth-theoretic, conceptual or encyclopaedic distinctions.
    [Show full text]
  • Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the Problem of Copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017
    Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the problem of copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017 This class: . We discuss Nunes’s (1995, 2004) proposal that copy deletion derives from the demands of the linearization algorithm at PF . We look at cases for which a copy theory has an advantage over a trace theory, involving multiple spell-out in predicate clefting/V-fronting constructions as well as wh-copying . We examine exceptional cases of copy spell-out, including deletion of the highest copy and scattered deletion 1 Two approaches to copy deletion As we discussed last week, Merge provides us with a single structure-building mechanism. Merge can create long-distance dependencies as long as we adopt the Copy Theory of Movement: (1) Which book did you read which book? CP DP C’ which book did TP you T’ did VP read which book However, getting rid of traces in this way means that we need to posit a rule of copy deletion. But where does copy deletion come from? 1.1 Three sources of wellformedness constraints In the Minimalist Program, constraints on wellformedness have only three possible sources: 1. Constraints on the PF interface 2. Constraints on the LF interface 3. Natural principles of computation, often referred to as “economy constraints” =) Copy deletion too should derive from one of these sources. 1 Two of these options have been explored in previous work, and we will discuss them this week: 1. Copy deletion as a result of linearization at PF (Nunes 1995, 2004; cf. Fox and Pesetsky 2005; Johnson 2012): .
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Minimalist Syntax
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMALIST SYNTAX Timothy Hawes Northeastern University Senior Honors Project Dec, 15 2005 Introduction Many animals communicate with sounds and signs. Birds have elaborate songs to attract mates, some monkeys have special warning cries for different threats and some animals have even been taught to communicate with people using limited vocabularies of signed or spoken words. Each of these forms of communication represents some sort of paring between sound (or actions) and meaning. However, all of these forms of communication differ from human language in one very important feature, productivity. Not only can humans produce sounds that have abstract relations to meanings, but humans have a system of language that is both hierarchically organized and recursive, thus making it infinitely productive. As the only species on earth with language in this sense, it seems logical to conclude that there must be some sort of biological basis for this property. Though the degree to which language is biologically specified has been argued for many years now, it has been generally agreed that there is something specific to humans that gives them the ability to produce language. This special property is known as the “Faculty of Language”, and has long been the object of linguistic inquiry. By studying the Faculty of Language, linguists hope not only to be able to describe languages with all of their variation, but be able to explain the basic properties of language and how children are able to acquire it so easily despite the many factors working against them. In the early 1960’s, linguists were trying to explain language acquisition and linguistic variation with the “format framework”, which relied on rules and constructions to explain grammar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minimalist Program 1 1 the Minimalist Program
    The Minimalist Program 1 1 The Minimalist Program Introduction It is my opinion that the implications of the Minimalist Program (MP) are more radical than generally supposed. I do not believe that the main thrust of MP is technical; whether to move features or categories for example. MP suggests that UG has a very different look from the standard picture offered by GB-based theories. This book tries to make good on this claim by outlining an approach to grammar based on one version of MP. I stress at the outset the qualifier “version.” Minimalism is not a theory but a program animated by certain kinds of methodological and substantive regulative ideals. These ideals are reflected in more concrete principles which are in turn used in minimalist models to analyze specific empirical phenomena. What follows is but one way of articulating the MP credo. I hope to convince you that this version spawns grammatical accounts that have a theoretically interesting structure and a fair degree of empirical support. The task, however, is doubly difficult. First, it is unclear what the content of these precepts is. Second, there is a non-negligible distance between the content of such precepts and its formal realization in specific grammatical principles and analyses. The immediate task is to approach the first hurdle and report what I take the precepts and principles of MP to be.1 1 Principles-Parameters and Minimalism MP is many things to many researchers. To my mind it grows out of the per- ceived success of the principles and parameters (P&P) approach to grammatical competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar
    Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar Ivan A. Sag and Thomas Wasow Stanford University ¡ sag,wasow ¢ @csli.stanford.edu 1 Competence and Performance Half a century ago, Noam Chomsky introduced the field of linguistics to new mathematical tools drawn largely from recursive function theory. These were exciting tools that imparted mathematical precision, perhaps for the first time in the history of Linguistics, to the enterprise of grammar construction. The cornerstone of Chomsky's new theoretical edifice, was the grammatical transformation, an analytic device which led to new insights about a vast array of empirical phenomena left unanalyzed by previous linguistic traditions. As the theory of transformations developed, so did Chomsky's conception of linguistic theory. Transformational grammar was accorded the status of a theory of idealized linguis- tic knowledge – linguistic competence, to be distinguished from the more general study of language use (including the unconscious mental processes involved in producing and compre- hending utterances), termed linguistic performance. The relation between these two notions, as Chomsky (1965:10) emphasized, is that “... investigation of performance will proceed only so far as understanding of underlying competence permits.” For all their initial descriptive success, however, linguistic transformations have proven rather intransigent. Early psycholinguistic studies based on transformational grammar sought to show a correlation between the psychological complexity of sentences and the number of transformations involved in their derivations. The initial experiments provided enough support for this `derivational theory of complexity' (DTC) that Chomsky (1968) wrote “The results show a remarkable correlation of the amount of memory and number of transformations”. But this optimism was short-lived.
    [Show full text]
  • A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (Chomsky 1993)
    MIT Fall A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory Chomsky The Minimalist Chronicles Episo de I MIT We Dec To start with some familiar observations regarding Economy Why do DPs move to Ap ositions a The ship was sunk t i i b The ice melted t i i c L es l les ont toutes dans French The girls have allFEMPL danced The girls have all danced Cf Toutes les l les ont dans Bil l seemed to t that the world is round a i i seemed to Bil l that the Cf It b Bil l struck t that the world is round i i Cf It struck Bil l that the Last Resort Move to Sp ec only if some prop erty of or requires it Some version of the Caselter This is an economy consideration Theory What else may not motivate movement to Ap ositions Binding a Sue b elieved herself to seem likely t to win the game i i would win the game b Sue believed herself to seem likely to t that Mary i i Cf Sue believed it to seem likely to her mother that Mary would win the game judgements O to seem to oneself to always be likely to t win is a welcome il lusion a PR i i b PRO to be liked t by everone is wishful thinking i i c PRO to seem to t that Bush is intel ligent is hard to believe i i or it to seem to anyone that Bush is intel ligent is impossible Cf F 1 Handout inspired in great part from Davids exegesis What ab out covert expletive replacement Though there is much to say ab out the story of ther e a There seem to be children in the room b There seem that children are in the room Cf It seems that children are in the room So what exactly do
    [Show full text]
  • Catalan Journal of Linguistics
    Centre de Lingüística Teòrica de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Centre de Lingüística Teòrica de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Institut Interuniversitari de Filologia Valenciana Institut Interuniversitari de Filologia Valenciana Special Issue, 2019 Catalan Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1695-6885 (in press); ISSN 2014-9719 (online) Special Issue, 2019 https://revistes.uab.cat/catJL ISSN 1695-6885 (in press); ISSN 2014-9719 (online) https://revistes.uab.cat/catJL Generative Syntax. Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges Index 7 D’Alessandro, Roberta. The achievements of Generative ATATALAN Syntax: a time chart and some reflections. INGUISTICS C † L 27 Martin, Roger ; Orús, Román; Uriagereka, Juan. Towards L Matrix Syntax. 45 Biberauer, Theresa. Factors 2 and 3: Towards a principled approach. JJOURNAL 89 Hunter, Tim. What sort of cognitive hypothesis is a derivational theory of grammar? OURNAL OF C J 139 Richards, Marc. Problems of ‘Problems of Projection’: J OF INGUISTICS Breaking a conceptual tie. M LL AN Y 153 Siddiqi, Daniel. On Morpho-Syntax. CM 165 Irurtzun, Aritz. De-syntacticising Syntax? Concerns on the ATAL Architecture of Grammar and the Role of Interface AT MY Special Issue Components. C C CY 203 Cerrudo, Alba. Discourse Phenomena as a Window to the 2019 CMY Interfaces. K 229 Chomsky, Noam; Gallego, Ángel J.; Ott, Dennis. Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Generative Syntax. Questions, Challenges. Crossroads, and Challenges 263 Chomsky, Noam. Some Puzzling Foundational Issues: The
    [Show full text]
  • Minimalist Grammars and Recognition
    Minimalist grammars and recognition Edward P. Stabler∗ Abstract Recent work has shown how basic ideas of the minimalist tradition in transformational syntax can be captured in a simple generative for- malism, a “derivational minimalism.” This framework can model “rem- nant movement” analyses, which yield more complex antecedent-trace relations, suggesting a new and significant sense in which linguistic structures are “chain based.” Michaelis (1998) showed that these gram- mars correspond to a certain kind of linear context free rewrite system, and this paper takes the next step of adapting the recognition meth- ods for “non-concatenative” grammars (Weir, 1988; Seki et al., 1991; Boullier, 1999). This turns out to be quite straightforward once the grammars are set out appropriately. 1 Chain-based syntax Some recent proposals in transformational syntax involve more movements of larger pieces of structure than have ever been seriously proposed be- fore. According to some of these analyses movement, everything major constituent in a clause moves. For example, in an attempt to get certain lin- guistic universals about constituent order to follow from the architecture of human grammars, Kayne has proposed that there is no right adjunction and no rightward movement. These proposals are at odds with the earlier transformational analyses of structures like: (1) They showed [a picture ti]tome[thatIlike]i Here, it was commonly assumed that the relative clause was right adjoined to the noun phrase apictureand then right extraposed to its final position. To account for the fact that VO languages tend to be prepositional, Kayne (1999) considers the possibility that P enters a derivation not by merging with its object, but rather entering above the VP, like other case assign- ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Generative Linguistics
    Acta Linguistica Academica / p. 309 / September 8, 2019 Acta Linguistica Academica Vol. 66 (2019) 3, 309–334 DOI: 10.1556/2062.2019.66.3.1 Foundations of generative linguistics Éva Dékány Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences [email protected] Abstract: This paper gives a broad overview of the ideas underlying the Chomskyan approach to linguis- tics. It identifies the main innovation of generative grammar in linguistics and clarifies some recurring misunderstandings about the language faculty, recursion and language universals. The paper also dis- cusses some of the main empirical results of generative syntax. Keywords: generative grammar; transformation; language faculty; recursion; language universal 1. Introduction This paper aims to give a broad overview of the foundations underlying the Chomskyan approach to linguistics. Instead of focusing on the technical apparatus and analytical details of either Government and Binding theory (Chomsky 1981) or the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993; 1995), I put the spotlight on how Chomsky changed the research questions and research agenda of linguistics (section 2).1 In section 3 I clarify some stubborn misunderstandings which regularly appear about Chomskyan linguistics in the literature of competing frameworks. Section 4 is dedicated to the fields of application and data collecting methods of generative grammar. Some of the main empirical results of generative syntax are discussed in section 5. 2. Generative grammar and its relation to transformations The linguistic theory that grew out of Chomsky’s work is called generative grammar. In this context, ‘grammar’ refers to all levels of language with a structure, that is, it includes phonology, morphology and syntax as well as (compositional, non-lexical) semantics.
    [Show full text]