219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201608250426 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
744008232 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LFAB 3 Eb 15 9789027288011 06 10.1075/lfab.3 13 2010018680 DG 002 02 01 LFAB 02 1877-6531 Language Faculty and Beyond 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars</TitleText> 01 lfab.3 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/lfab.3 1 B01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University 01 eng 315 xii 301 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The Minimalist Program has advanced a research program that builds the design of human language from conceptual necessity. Seminal proposals by Frampton &#38; Gutmann (1999, 2000, 2002) introduced the notion that an ideal syntactic theory should be ‘crash-proof’. Such a version of the Minimalist Program (or any other linguistic theory) would not permit syntactic operations to produce structures that ‘crash’. There have, however, been some recent developments in Minimalism – especially those that approach linguistic theory from a biolinguistic perspective (cf. Chomsky 2005 et seq.) – that have called the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ into serious question. The papers in this volume take on the daunting challenge of defining exactly what a ‘crash’ is and what a ‘crash-proof grammar’ would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ is biolinguistically appealing. 05 Mike Putnam has put together the perfect and most up to date gateway into the world of crash-proof syntax. Can syntactic derivations fail to produce viable structures of meaning and sound? This is a cutting-edge and radically open question of human language design, which affects both linguistic description and theory, within and beyond linguistic Minimalism. Whatever one’s answer to the question, the journey into this important territory should start from this book. Wolfram H. Hinzen, Professor of Philosophy, Durham University 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/lfab.3.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208200.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208200.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/lfab.3.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/lfab.3.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/lfab.3.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/lfab.3.hb.png 10 01 JB code lfab.3.00pre ix 1 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface &#38; Acknowledgments</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.00loc xi 1 Miscellaneous 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">List of contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.01put 1 12 12 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring crash-proof grammars</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An introduction</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Pennsylvania State University 10 01 JB code lfab.3.p1 13 84 72 Section header 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.02oua 15 30 16 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Hamid Ouali Ouali, Hamid Hamid Ouali University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 01 Frampton &#38; Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes &#8220;crashing derivations&#8221; would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; syntax which requires constraining all the computational operations. This paper makes a distinction between a fatal crash/strict crash and non-fatal crash/soft crash. I will argue that in a model with Feature Inheritance (Chomsky 2000, 2001 and 2004), a mechanism that supersedes Agree, seemingly non-convergent derivations can be salvaged as long every mechanism in the grammar that&#8217;s available is exhausted. I argue, given data from Tamazight Berber, that the three logical possibilities of Feature Inheritance namely DONATE, KEEP, and SHARE, proposed in Ouali (2006, 2008), and whose application is ranked with KEEP applying only if DONATE fails, and SHARE applying only of KEEP fails, despite requiring seemingly different derivations can be accounted for within a less strict crash-proof syntax. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.03car 31 58 28 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features</TitleText> 1 A01 Vicki Carstens Carstens, Vicki Vicki Carstens University of Missouri – Columbia 01 I argue that grammatical gender is semantically empty but intrinsically valued, so the strict linkage between uninterpretable and unvalued in Chomsky (2001) cannot be correct. I then demonstrate that gender is infinitely reusable as an &#8220; activity&#8221; feature; in contrast, abstract Case activates a DP for just one Agree relation. This asymmetry suggests that valuation via Agree causes goal deactivation, and that deactivation is not necessary for every uninterpretable feature (<i>u</i>F). I accordingly analyze deactivation as arising from PF illegibility of multiple values for a single feature. Agree relations value Case, but never value nominal gender, so the legibility problem does not arise. I demonstrate that in Bantu, adjunction of N to D makes gender accessible to all probes outside DP. This and the reusability of gender as an activity feature leads to a cluster of systematic contrasts between Bantu and Indo-European languages: Bantu DPs A-move much more freely than Indo-European DPs, and value iterating subject agreement. The facts thus demonstrate that the internal syntax of DP impacts its feature matrix; it is not the case that a DP automatically inherits all f-features of its subparts, as syntactic theory generally assumes. Finally, I illustrate that Bantu C and T can agree with different expressions, casting doubt on the Feature Inheritance approach to <i>u</i>F in Chomsky (2007, 2008) and Richards (2007). The facts of grammatical gender argue that valued <i>u</i>F Transfer to the Conceptual-Intentional Interface without inducing crashes. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.04sig 59 86 28 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The Empty Left Edge Condition</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">Empty Left Edge Condition</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 2 A01 Joan Maling Maling, Joan Joan Maling Brandeis University 01 Argument drop is commonly subject to the Empty Left Edge Condition, ELEC, requiring that the left edge of the clause not be spelled out. ELEC can be explained in terms of minimality, as an intervention effect (blocking context-linking of the null-argument). We argue that sensitivity to this effect is the most important &#8216;pro drop parametric&#8217; factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between &#8216;different types&#8217; of null-arguments. However, we also present striking evidence from Icelandic that emptiness conditions of this sort are operative in PF, a conclusion that suggests that much of &#8216;syntax&#8217; in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or &#8216;PF syntax&#8217;, invisible to the semantic interface. If so, derivational crashes may occur (in the PF derivation), even though narrow syntax itself is crash-proof. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.p2 87 298 212 Section header 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II The crash-proof debate</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.05ott 89 104 16 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG</TitleText> 1 A01 Dennis Ott Ott, Dennis Dennis Ott Department of Linguistics, Harvard University 01 It is argued that the notions &#8220;well-formedness&#8221; and &#8220;grammaticality,&#8221; inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [&#177; grammatical] distinction exists, i.e. that I-language generates only certain structures but not others, is empirically questionable and presumably requires a richly structured UG. Some aspects of &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; models of syntax that assume such a distinction are discussed and contrasted with an alternative proposal (the Minimalist Program as pursued by Chomsky), which dispenses entirely with grammaticality, allowing syntax to generate freely. The latter program aims not at distinguishing &#8220;grammatical&#8221; from &#8220;ungrammatical&#8221; sentences, but at providing a true theory of the mechanisms that assign interpretations to structures at the interfaces. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.06boe 105 124 20 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A tale of two minimalisms</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">tale of two minimalisms</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative</Subtitle> 1 A01 Cedric Boeckx Boeckx, Cedric Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UAB 10 01 JB code lfab.3.07eps 125 142 18 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Uninterpretable features</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">What are they and what do they do?</Subtitle> 1 A01 Samuel David Epstein Epstein, Samuel David Samuel David Epstein 2 A01 Hisatsugu Kitahara Kitahara, Hisatsugu Hisatsugu Kitahara 3 A01 T. Daniel Seely Seely, T. Daniel T. Daniel Seely 01 This paper consists of four sections. Section 1 identifies an important unclarity regarding the central concept &#8220;crash&#8221; and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky&#8217;s (2007, 2008) attractively deductive valuation-transfer analysis. Section 3 offers a possible solution to this problem, reanalyzing the relation between uninterpretable features and Transfer. Section 4 presents a possible modification of a crash-proof aspect of the proposed model and briefly discusses a remaining question. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.08put 143 166 24 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism</TitleText> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam 2 A01 Thomas Stroik Stroik, Thomas Thomas Stroik 01 Survive-minimalism, as developed in Stroik (1999, 2009) and Putnam (2007), argues for a &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; syntax that is divested of all derivation-to-derivation and derivation-to-interface operations, such as <i>Internal Merge</i> and <i>Transfer</i>. In this paper, we extend our investigations into Minimalist syntax by showing how it is possible to derive crash-proof syntactic relations using the <i>External Merge</i> operation only. Central to our analysis is the active role that the Numeration plays in building derivations. We demonstrate here that our approach to syntactic relations is in many respects conceptually superior to other Minimalist alternatives, mainly on the grounds that our analysis offers a conceptually grounded explication of how a derivation begins, proceeds and (successfully) terminates without relying on theory-internal stipulations or labels. Contra Boeckx (this volume) and Ott (this volume), we conclude that an optimal design of the C<sub>HL</sub> is indeed &#8216;crash-proof&#8217; after all. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.09sur 167 212 46 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Toward a strongly derivational syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Balázs Surányi Surányi, Balázs Balázs Surányi 01 Pointing out several undesirable consequences that Merge gives rise to in the mainstream minimalist approach to phrase structure, a strongly derivational model is developed that dispenses with the narrow syntactic Merge operation. Representations and recursion are argued to be properties of the interface components only, and to be absent from narrow syntax. Transfer, implementing feature checking in a local fashion and instructing interface computations, is defined as an iterative operation mapping Lexical Items to the interface components directly. In lack of Merge, narrow syntactic overgeneration is eliminated in toto, since no narrow syntactic representations are created and filtering of Transfer operations by the interface modules is immediate. It is argued that of the twin (overlapping) objectives of making syntax crash-proof and restricting syntactic overgeneration, only the latter is of relevance to the architecture of grammar. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.10leu 213 244 32 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars</TitleText> 1 A01 Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung United Arab Emirates University 01 This paper looks at how the particular computational mechanism of Crash-Proof Syntax (CPS) (Frampton &#38; Gutmann 1999, 2002) as an instantiation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) can be understood from the point of view of mathematical foundation that captured the spotlight among mathematicians during the nineteenth century. I claim that CPS can be analyzed as an analogy with Classical Peano&#8217;s Axioms that generate the theory of natural numbers. Instead of its computational efficiency, CPS is driven by the economization of axioms of formal systems. Further comparisons between syntax and natural numbers reveal that the central tenets of CPS can be defined mathematically on one hand, and highlight the significance of the &#8216;third factor&#8217; as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.11bro 245 268 24 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Crash-proof syntax and filters</TitleText> 1 A01 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Meertens Institute 2 A01 Ralf Vogel Vogel, Ralf Ralf Vogel University of Bielefeld 01 This article argues that even when it turns out to be possible to develop a crash-proof syntax that only generates well-formed objects that satisfy the interface conditions, filters on the output of the computational system will remain an essential ingredient of the theory of syntax. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the more general and modest aim of the crash-proof syntax project to limit the output of the derivational system to &#8220;objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems&#8221; should be dismissed as irrelevant. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.12cha 269 298 30 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar</TitleText> 1 A01 Rui P. Chaves Chaves, Rui P. Rui P. Chaves Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY 01 The problem of obtaining a &#8216;crash-proof syntax&#8217; has proved a difficult one for the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). This paper argues that this difficulty stems from the intrinsic enumerative-generative nature of the framework, since model-theoretic frameworks of grammar are crash-proof by definition (Pullum &#38; Scholtz, 2001). The latter do not describe, define or produce derivations, or any kind of linguistic structure for that matter. The production of linguistic structures is left to the performance modules (i.e. comprehension and production), which consult the competence grammar module in order to determine which structures are possible. On the other hand, it is clear that the construction of syntactic structure performed by performance modules can &#8211; and often does &#8211; go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance &#8216;crashes&#8217;. Because they lack the notion of derivation, model-theoretic frameworks are better suited to be integrated with theories of how linguistic structure is actually built in production and comprehension. It is unclear what psychological correlate, if any, there is to derivations and crashes in a Minimalist setting. It is known since Fodor et al. (1974) that a derivational theory of complexity has no psycholinguistic grounding. Model-theoretic frameworks do not have this problem precisely because they are process-neutral. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.17ind 299 301 3 Miscellaneous 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20100915 2010 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027208200 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 99.00 EUR R 01 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 149.00 USD S 228008231 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LFAB 3 Hb 15 9789027208200 13 2010018680 BB 01 LFAB 02 1877-6531 Language Faculty and Beyond 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars</TitleText> 01 lfab.3 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/lfab.3 1 B01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University 01 eng 315 xii 301 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The Minimalist Program has advanced a research program that builds the design of human language from conceptual necessity. Seminal proposals by Frampton &#38; Gutmann (1999, 2000, 2002) introduced the notion that an ideal syntactic theory should be ‘crash-proof’. Such a version of the Minimalist Program (or any other linguistic theory) would not permit syntactic operations to produce structures that ‘crash’. There have, however, been some recent developments in Minimalism – especially those that approach linguistic theory from a biolinguistic perspective (cf. Chomsky 2005 et seq.) – that have called the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ into serious question. The papers in this volume take on the daunting challenge of defining exactly what a ‘crash’ is and what a ‘crash-proof grammar’ would look like, and of investigating whether or not the pursuit of a ‘crash-proof grammar’ is biolinguistically appealing. 05 Mike Putnam has put together the perfect and most up to date gateway into the world of crash-proof syntax. Can syntactic derivations fail to produce viable structures of meaning and sound? This is a cutting-edge and radically open question of human language design, which affects both linguistic description and theory, within and beyond linguistic Minimalism. Whatever one’s answer to the question, the journey into this important territory should start from this book. Wolfram H. Hinzen, Professor of Philosophy, Durham University 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/lfab.3.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208200.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208200.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/lfab.3.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/lfab.3.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/lfab.3.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/lfab.3.hb.png 10 01 JB code lfab.3.00pre ix 1 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface &#38; Acknowledgments</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.00loc xi 1 Miscellaneous 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">List of contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.01put 1 12 12 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring crash-proof grammars</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">An introduction</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Pennsylvania State University 10 01 JB code lfab.3.p1 13 84 72 Section header 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.02oua 15 30 16 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Hamid Ouali Ouali, Hamid Hamid Ouali University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 01 Frampton &#38; Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes &#8220;crashing derivations&#8221; would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; syntax which requires constraining all the computational operations. This paper makes a distinction between a fatal crash/strict crash and non-fatal crash/soft crash. I will argue that in a model with Feature Inheritance (Chomsky 2000, 2001 and 2004), a mechanism that supersedes Agree, seemingly non-convergent derivations can be salvaged as long every mechanism in the grammar that&#8217;s available is exhausted. I argue, given data from Tamazight Berber, that the three logical possibilities of Feature Inheritance namely DONATE, KEEP, and SHARE, proposed in Ouali (2006, 2008), and whose application is ranked with KEEP applying only if DONATE fails, and SHARE applying only of KEEP fails, despite requiring seemingly different derivations can be accounted for within a less strict crash-proof syntax. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.03car 31 58 28 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features</TitleText> 1 A01 Vicki Carstens Carstens, Vicki Vicki Carstens University of Missouri – Columbia 01 I argue that grammatical gender is semantically empty but intrinsically valued, so the strict linkage between uninterpretable and unvalued in Chomsky (2001) cannot be correct. I then demonstrate that gender is infinitely reusable as an &#8220; activity&#8221; feature; in contrast, abstract Case activates a DP for just one Agree relation. This asymmetry suggests that valuation via Agree causes goal deactivation, and that deactivation is not necessary for every uninterpretable feature (<i>u</i>F). I accordingly analyze deactivation as arising from PF illegibility of multiple values for a single feature. Agree relations value Case, but never value nominal gender, so the legibility problem does not arise. I demonstrate that in Bantu, adjunction of N to D makes gender accessible to all probes outside DP. This and the reusability of gender as an activity feature leads to a cluster of systematic contrasts between Bantu and Indo-European languages: Bantu DPs A-move much more freely than Indo-European DPs, and value iterating subject agreement. The facts thus demonstrate that the internal syntax of DP impacts its feature matrix; it is not the case that a DP automatically inherits all f-features of its subparts, as syntactic theory generally assumes. Finally, I illustrate that Bantu C and T can agree with different expressions, casting doubt on the Feature Inheritance approach to <i>u</i>F in Chomsky (2007, 2008) and Richards (2007). The facts of grammatical gender argue that valued <i>u</i>F Transfer to the Conceptual-Intentional Interface without inducing crashes. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.04sig 59 86 28 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The Empty Left Edge Condition</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">Empty Left Edge Condition</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 2 A01 Joan Maling Maling, Joan Joan Maling Brandeis University 01 Argument drop is commonly subject to the Empty Left Edge Condition, ELEC, requiring that the left edge of the clause not be spelled out. ELEC can be explained in terms of minimality, as an intervention effect (blocking context-linking of the null-argument). We argue that sensitivity to this effect is the most important &#8216;pro drop parametric&#8217; factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between &#8216;different types&#8217; of null-arguments. However, we also present striking evidence from Icelandic that emptiness conditions of this sort are operative in PF, a conclusion that suggests that much of &#8216;syntax&#8217; in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or &#8216;PF syntax&#8217;, invisible to the semantic interface. If so, derivational crashes may occur (in the PF derivation), even though narrow syntax itself is crash-proof. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.p2 87 298 212 Section header 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II The crash-proof debate</TitleText> 10 01 JB code lfab.3.05ott 89 104 16 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG</TitleText> 1 A01 Dennis Ott Ott, Dennis Dennis Ott Department of Linguistics, Harvard University 01 It is argued that the notions &#8220;well-formedness&#8221; and &#8220;grammaticality,&#8221; inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [&#177; grammatical] distinction exists, i.e. that I-language generates only certain structures but not others, is empirically questionable and presumably requires a richly structured UG. Some aspects of &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; models of syntax that assume such a distinction are discussed and contrasted with an alternative proposal (the Minimalist Program as pursued by Chomsky), which dispenses entirely with grammaticality, allowing syntax to generate freely. The latter program aims not at distinguishing &#8220;grammatical&#8221; from &#8220;ungrammatical&#8221; sentences, but at providing a true theory of the mechanisms that assign interpretations to structures at the interfaces. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.06boe 105 124 20 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A tale of two minimalisms</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">tale of two minimalisms</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative</Subtitle> 1 A01 Cedric Boeckx Boeckx, Cedric Cedric Boeckx ICREA/UAB 10 01 JB code lfab.3.07eps 125 142 18 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Uninterpretable features</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">What are they and what do they do?</Subtitle> 1 A01 Samuel David Epstein Epstein, Samuel David Samuel David Epstein 2 A01 Hisatsugu Kitahara Kitahara, Hisatsugu Hisatsugu Kitahara 3 A01 T. Daniel Seely Seely, T. Daniel T. Daniel Seely 01 This paper consists of four sections. Section 1 identifies an important unclarity regarding the central concept &#8220;crash&#8221; and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky&#8217;s (2007, 2008) attractively deductive valuation-transfer analysis. Section 3 offers a possible solution to this problem, reanalyzing the relation between uninterpretable features and Transfer. Section 4 presents a possible modification of a crash-proof aspect of the proposed model and briefly discusses a remaining question. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.08put 143 166 24 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism</TitleText> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam 2 A01 Thomas Stroik Stroik, Thomas Thomas Stroik 01 Survive-minimalism, as developed in Stroik (1999, 2009) and Putnam (2007), argues for a &#8220;crash-proof&#8221; syntax that is divested of all derivation-to-derivation and derivation-to-interface operations, such as <i>Internal Merge</i> and <i>Transfer</i>. In this paper, we extend our investigations into Minimalist syntax by showing how it is possible to derive crash-proof syntactic relations using the <i>External Merge</i> operation only. Central to our analysis is the active role that the Numeration plays in building derivations. We demonstrate here that our approach to syntactic relations is in many respects conceptually superior to other Minimalist alternatives, mainly on the grounds that our analysis offers a conceptually grounded explication of how a derivation begins, proceeds and (successfully) terminates without relying on theory-internal stipulations or labels. Contra Boeckx (this volume) and Ott (this volume), we conclude that an optimal design of the C<sub>HL</sub> is indeed &#8216;crash-proof&#8217; after all. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.09sur 167 212 46 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Toward a strongly derivational syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Balázs Surányi Surányi, Balázs Balázs Surányi 01 Pointing out several undesirable consequences that Merge gives rise to in the mainstream minimalist approach to phrase structure, a strongly derivational model is developed that dispenses with the narrow syntactic Merge operation. Representations and recursion are argued to be properties of the interface components only, and to be absent from narrow syntax. Transfer, implementing feature checking in a local fashion and instructing interface computations, is defined as an iterative operation mapping Lexical Items to the interface components directly. In lack of Merge, narrow syntactic overgeneration is eliminated in toto, since no narrow syntactic representations are created and filtering of Transfer operations by the interface modules is immediate. It is argued that of the twin (overlapping) objectives of making syntax crash-proof and restricting syntactic overgeneration, only the latter is of relevance to the architecture of grammar. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.10leu 213 244 32 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars</TitleText> 1 A01 Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung Tommi Tsz-Cheung Leung United Arab Emirates University 01 This paper looks at how the particular computational mechanism of Crash-Proof Syntax (CPS) (Frampton &#38; Gutmann 1999, 2002) as an instantiation of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) can be understood from the point of view of mathematical foundation that captured the spotlight among mathematicians during the nineteenth century. I claim that CPS can be analyzed as an analogy with Classical Peano&#8217;s Axioms that generate the theory of natural numbers. Instead of its computational efficiency, CPS is driven by the economization of axioms of formal systems. Further comparisons between syntax and natural numbers reveal that the central tenets of CPS can be defined mathematically on one hand, and highlight the significance of the &#8216;third factor&#8217; as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.11bro 245 268 24 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Crash-proof syntax and filters</TitleText> 1 A01 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Meertens Institute 2 A01 Ralf Vogel Vogel, Ralf Ralf Vogel University of Bielefeld 01 This article argues that even when it turns out to be possible to develop a crash-proof syntax that only generates well-formed objects that satisfy the interface conditions, filters on the output of the computational system will remain an essential ingredient of the theory of syntax. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the more general and modest aim of the crash-proof syntax project to limit the output of the derivational system to &#8220;objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems&#8221; should be dismissed as irrelevant. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.12cha 269 298 30 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar</TitleText> 1 A01 Rui P. Chaves Chaves, Rui P. Rui P. Chaves Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY 01 The problem of obtaining a &#8216;crash-proof syntax&#8217; has proved a difficult one for the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). This paper argues that this difficulty stems from the intrinsic enumerative-generative nature of the framework, since model-theoretic frameworks of grammar are crash-proof by definition (Pullum &#38; Scholtz, 2001). The latter do not describe, define or produce derivations, or any kind of linguistic structure for that matter. The production of linguistic structures is left to the performance modules (i.e. comprehension and production), which consult the competence grammar module in order to determine which structures are possible. On the other hand, it is clear that the construction of syntactic structure performed by performance modules can &#8211; and often does &#8211; go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance &#8216;crashes&#8217;. Because they lack the notion of derivation, model-theoretic frameworks are better suited to be integrated with theories of how linguistic structure is actually built in production and comprehension. It is unclear what psychological correlate, if any, there is to derivations and crashes in a Minimalist setting. It is known since Fodor et al. (1974) that a derivational theory of complexity has no psycholinguistic grounding. Model-theoretic frameworks do not have this problem precisely because they are process-neutral. 10 01 JB code lfab.3.17ind 299 301 3 Miscellaneous 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20100915 2010 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 720 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 35 16 01 02 JB 1 00 99.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 104.94 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 16 02 02 JB 1 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 16 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 149.00 USD