1 / 48

Chomskian Syntax

Chomskian Syntax. Elly van Gelderen ASU Philosophy Club 14 March 2019. Outline. What is language, linguistics, faculty of language (FoL) Poverty of the Stimulus; What is innate? Changes from Universal Grammar (UG) to Third Factors over the last 60 years of GG Examples of derivations

delmyt
Download Presentation

Chomskian Syntax

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chomskian Syntax Elly van Gelderen ASU Philosophy Club 14 March 2019

  2. Outline What is language, linguistics, faculty of language (FoL) Poverty of the Stimulus; What is innate? Changes from Universal Grammar (UG) to Third Factors over the last 60 years of GG Examples of derivations If time: my own work If time: mind vs matter: can linguistics contribute to the debate on dualism?

  3. Linguistics is the study of language

  4. Linguistics distinguishes Phonetics Phonology Morphology Syntax Semantics Pragmatics

  5. The Faculty of Language The ability to acquire and use a linguistic system to express our inner thoughts and wishes. We produce sounds to form words and put them in a sentence which conveys a meaning.

  6. Early model of language acquisition/change(based on Andersen 1973) Generation n Generation n+1 UG UG + + experience experience n = = I-language n I-language n+1 E-language n E-language n+1 + innovations

  7. Faculty of Language

  8. Poverty of the Stimulus The input to language learning is seen as poor. The basis for this phenomenon is that speakers know so much more than what they have evidence for from the input. Nobody is taught: (1) Who did she think she was dealing with -? (2) *Who did she ask when John met --?

  9. Chomsky (1975: 36). The innate language faculty, when "stimulated by appropriate and continuing experience, … creates a grammar that creates sentences with formal and semantic properties”.

  10. Generative Grammar of the 1950s Noam Chomsky and the generative model he develops offer an alternative, starting in the late 1950s, to descriptive linguistics and behaviorism and bring about a revolution in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. Chomsky continues to stress descriptive adequacy and explanatory adequacy to emphasize how the language faculty is represented in and acquired by humans. BEA: why is the FoL the way it is?

  11. Phrase Structure and Transformations (1) a. Sentence NP + VP b. VP Verb + NP (Chomsky 1957 : 27) (2) If S1 is a grammatical sentence of the form NP1 - Aux - V - NP2, then the corresponding string of the form NP2 - Aux + be + en- V by + NP1 is also a grammatical sentence. (Chomsky 1957: 43)

  12. X’, Principles and Parameters improve this system: (1) CP C’ C TP T’ T VP V’ V ... (2) Headedness, pro-drop, etc

  13. Current Generative Model Lexicon N(arrow) S(yntax) = Merge Interfaces PHON SEM External systems: Sensorimotor Conceptual-Intentional

  14. Merge and Agree; now also phases (1) TP T’ T VP [u-phi] [i-pr] DP V’ many buffaloes V PP [i-3] [i-P] live in this room

  15. Minimalism Reduce Universal Grammar (UG) Earlier: parameters in the syntax (e.g. head-initial) but now all variation is in the lexicon by means of features; syntax is `merge’ Lexical learning and the Poverty of the Stimulus suggest the need for innate concepts

  16. Chomsky (2014: Interview 4 March) Between early and late GG: “There are two crucial things that remain the same. One is recognition that the core property of language is an unbounded system for generating hierarchic structures with dual interpretations and the other is that it should be constructed within a biological framework”. Emphasis on MERGE (=UG) and features (parametrized)

  17. Three Factors relevant to the FL “(1) genetic endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition possible; (2) external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow range; (3) principles not specific to FL [the Faculty of Language]. Some of the third factor principles have the flavor of the constraints that enter into all facets of growth and evolution.... Among these are principles of efficient computation”. (Chomsky 2007: 3)

  18. From early Generative Grammar to Minimalism Universal Grammar (UG) and Third factors (e.g. Principles & Parameters) + + Input Input (Scottish English, Western Navajo, …) = = I-language I-language E-language E-Language

  19. Structure over linear order Reflexives Who is `himself’ in: • The uncle of Obama voted for himself. Subject-Aux Inversion (2) Elephants that can swim are happy. >(3) Are elephants that can swim happy? >(4) *Can elephants that swim are happy?

  20. Locality of movement • Whodid she think she was dealing with --? (COCA 2007) (2) *Who did she ask when John met --? (3) I heard (the report) that she met him. > (4) Who did I hear that she met --? > (5)*Who did I hear the report that she met --?

  21. Third factor = Economy Locality = Minimize computational burden (Ross 1967; Chomsky 1973) Use a head = Minimize Structure (Head Preference Principle, van Gelderen 2004) Late Merge = Minimize computational burden (van Gelderen 2004, and others) The latter two can be seen in terms of Feature Economy

  22. The actual features are not third factor Chomsky (1965: 142): “semantic features ... too, are presumably drawn from a universal ‘alphabet’ but little is known about this today and nothing has been said about it here.” Chomsky (1993: 24) vocabulary acquisition shows poverty of the stimulus.

  23. Borer-Chomsky-Conjecture Parameters now consist of choices of feature specifications as the child acquires a lexicon (Chomsky 2007). Baker, while disagreeing with this view of parameters, calls this the Borer-Chomsky-Conjecture (2008: 156): "All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon."

  24. Types of minimalist features The semantic features of lexical items (which have to be cognitively based) The interpretable ones relevant at the Conceptual-Intentional interface. Uninterpretable features act as `glue’ so to speak to help out merge. For instance, person and number features (=phi-features) are interpretable on nouns but not on verbs.

  25. Formal features are interpretable and uninterpretable (Chomsky 1995: 277): airplanebuild Interpr. [nominal] [verbal] [3 person] [assign [non-human] accusative] Uninterpr [Case] [phi]

  26. The importance of various features Chomsky (1965: 87-88): lexicon contains information for the phonological, semantic, and syntactic component. Sincerity (+N, -Count, +Abstract...) Chomsky (1995: 230ff; 236; 277ff): semantic (e.g. abstract object), phonological (e.g. the sounds), and formal features: intrinsic or optional.

  27. Features of airplane and build(adapted from Chomsky 1995: 231) Semantic would be innate; formal needs to be learned! airplanebuild semantic: e.g. [artifact] e.g. [action] phonological: e.g. [begins with a vowel; e.g. [one syllable] two syllables] formal: intrinsic optional intrinsic optional [nominal] [number] [verbal] [phi] [3 person] [Case] [assign accusative] [tense] [non-human]

  28. Categories/semantic features • Humans and non-humans are excellent at categorization, e.g. prairie dogs have colors, shape, size. • Words are not the problem; morphology is!

  29. Semantic and formal overlap: Chomsky (1995: 230; 381) suggests: "formal features have semantic correlates and reflect semantic properties (accusative Case and transitivity, for example)." I interpret this: If a language has nouns with semantic phi-features, the learner will be able to hypothesize uninterpretable features on another F (and will be able to bundle them there). Radford (2000): in acquisition from + > -

  30. If semantic features are innate, we need: Feature Economy (a) Utilize semantic features: use them as for functional categories, i.e. as formal features (van Gelderen 2008; 2011). (b) If a specific feature appears more than once, one of these is interpretable and the others are uninterpretable (Muysken 2008).

  31. Features and grammaticalization Grammaticalization is a change from semantic to formal features with (optional) loss of phonetic features. For instance, a verb with semantic features, such as Old English will with [volition, expectation, future], can be reanalyzed as ‘ll having only the grammatical feature [future].

  32. Cycles tell us which features matter Subject and Object Agreement (Givón) demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zero noun > first and second person > agreement > zero noun > noun marker > agreement > zero Copula Cycle (Katz) demonstrative > copula > zero third person > copula > zero verb > copula > aspect Noun Cycle (Greenberg) demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zero noun > number/gender > zero

  33. Innate vs acquired shapes grammatical gender negatives grammatical number `if’ modals mass-count Another question: much more speculative!

  34. Economy

  35. Reanalysis is crucial (1) Paul said, "Starting would be a good thing to do. How would you like to begin?“ (COCA 2010 Fiction)

  36. Reanalysis is upwards and towards less structure • You would like to go how? • How would you like to go? By car… • How would you like to go? Very much… • How would you like to go? Yes/no

  37. The real no-no:

  38. Modal verbs express possibility, etc 9 core: may might will would can could shall should must Semi: have to, ought to, want to …. They become: hafta, wanna, gonna ….

  39. A new class ending in -a (1) Syr, in good fayth Y am sory therefor, for and Y had west that ye would a taked so sor Y would nat a wreten so vnto you, nat and I schuld a gette therbey xx nobelys ... `Sir, in good faith, I am sorry for it, if I had known that you would have taken it so badly I would not have written to you that way ... and I should have gotten 20 nobles thereby' (Cely Letters, William Maryon, 1480).

  40. Gonna and wanna are adapting fromare going to > gonna, etc = modals: (1) Alright, so wegonna ask you a long question. (CNN 2015) I gonna do it, you gonna, s/he gonna, etc. (2) You wanna've seen your face (BNC) I wanna, you wanna, s/he wanna, etc.

  41. Free will vs determinism “Les idées ... ne tirent en aucune sorte leur origine des sens ... Notre ame a la faculté de les former de soi-même.” `Ideas do not in any fashion have their origin in the senses ... Our mind has the faculty to form those on its own.’ (Arnauld & Nicole 1662 [1965]: 45) Language is about the mind not the world!

  42. Is the `mind’ purely material? De la Mettrie Descartes Skinner Eccles/Popper Churchland Sperry (mentalism) Dennett Chalmers Consciousness and subjectivity? The problem of reference: unicorn, circle The mind thinks about that which is not; we can’t know what others think.

  43. For Baker (2011) the Faculty of Language is an ideal testing ground Vocabulary and grammar vs creative aspect of language use (CALU): unbounded, stimulus-free, and appropriate use. a) Is there an area in the brain for CALU? Wernicke and Broca’s aphasia: no evidence that CALU is affected. Lichtheim (1885): no aphasia with concept center affected. b) Is there a CALU gene? c) OCD therapy (Schwarz): mind tells the brain to stop

  44. In short Recent changes in what is innate: from Principles and Parameters > Third Factors and Features Eliminate the features that trigger movement and `blame’ movement on the resolution of a labeling conflict: {XP, YP} : one of the 2 must move....

  45. Wrap-up Brief overview of current generative linguistics Differences between early – current model Simpler but still focus on hierarchical structures and movement through MERGE. My interest: Gradual, unidirectional change provides a window on the language faculty

  46. Some references Baker, Mark 2011. Brains and Sould; Grammar and Speaking. In Baker & Goetz. Continuum. Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49. Chomsky, Noam 2014a. Problems of Projection: Extensions. ms. Chomsky, Noam 2014b. Transcript of interview by Naoki Fukui and MihokoZushi(March 4, 2014) Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  47. Links to images: https://eas.uni-sofia.bg/introduction-to-general-linguistics/ (slide 4)

More Related