Article published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.14sli
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny
1995 “Economy and scope.” Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–300. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
2011 Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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