Cover not available
Part of
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 350–362

What is and what is not problematic about the T-model

This paper focuses on two important discrepancies between the T-model of the grammar and performance systems responsible for production and comprehension. It argues that independently from the assumed perspective on the competence-performance distinction, one of them is not problematic and the other is. There is no real contradiction in directionality conflicts, i.e. in the fact that the grammar works strictly bottom-up, while performance systems involve many top-down processes. However, the fact that the computational system takes only lexical items and their features as its input presents a real problem, which manifests itself in the domains of scope and Information Structure. This problem can be solved in the grammar architecture where the C-I interface can be used during the derivation.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.14sli
References (52)
References
Bródy, Mihály. 1990. “Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian.” In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, John Harris (ed.), 201–225. London: University College London.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Focus and checking theory.” In Levels and Structures, Approaches to Hungarian 5, István Kenesei (ed.), 31–43. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. “Focus projection and default prominence.” In The Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), 321–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy.” In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Costa, João. 1998. “Word Order Variation. A Constraint-based Approach.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
. 2004. Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, Marica. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. The Minimal Chain Principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel. 1999. “Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations.” In Working Minimalism, Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean and Inoue, Atsu. 1995. “The diagnosis and cure of garden path.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23: 407–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1995. “Economy and scope.” Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn and Clifton, Charles. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn and Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. “The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model.” Cognition 6: 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tanya. 2001. “Scope in Russian: Quantifier movement and discourse function.” Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. “Negation in Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1993. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad and Titov, Elena. 2009. “Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 514–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad and Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. “Scrambling and the PF interface.” In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 309–353. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad and van de Koot, Hans. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 137–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Theoretical validity and psychological reality of the grammatical code.” In The Linguistics Enterprise, Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah De Mulder, Øystein Nilsen and Arjen Zondervan (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1994. “Focus in Standard Arabic.” Linguistics in Potsdam 1: 65–92.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. “Order and structure.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley L. 1992. Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface Strategies. Uil OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
. 2006. Interface Strategies: Reference-set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norwin. 1999. “Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34: 67–105.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats E. 1985. “Association with Focus.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rusakova, Marina. 2009. “Rečevaja realizacija grammatičeskix ėlementov russkogo jazyka” (in Russian, ‘Speech realization of some grammatical features of Russian’). Habilitation dissertation, St. Petersburg State University.Google Scholar
Schneider, David A. 1999. “Parsing and Incrementality.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Schneider, David A. and Phillips, Colin. 2001. “Grammatical search and reanalysis.” Journal of Memory and Language 44: 308–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing.” In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Jane Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Slioussar, Natalia. 2007. “Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian”. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Russian data call for relational Information Structure notions.” In Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya (eds), 329–344. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. Grammar and Information Structure: A Novel View Based on Russian Data. Ms., Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS and St. Petersburg State University.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2005. “Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian).” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 2, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 272–337. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Focus and the Syntax–phonology Interface.” Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria. 1995. “Focusing in modern Greek.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuller, Laurice. 1992. “The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2011. Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. “Discourse configurationality in Finnish.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2009. “Prospects for top-down derivation.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 161–187.Google Scholar