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
01
Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars
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 & 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
01
Preface & Acknowledgments
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.00loc
xi
1
Miscellaneous
2
01
List of contributors
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.01put
1
12
12
Article
3
01
Exploring crash-proof grammars
An introduction
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
01
Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.02oua
15
30
16
Article
5
01
Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax
1
A01
Hamid Ouali
Ouali, Hamid
Hamid
Ouali
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
01
Frampton & Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes “crashing derivations” would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a “crash-proof” 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’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
01
Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features
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 “ activity” 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
01
The Empty Left Edge Condition
The
Empty Left Edge Condition
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 ‘pro drop parametric’ factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between ‘different types’ 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 ‘syntax’ in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or ‘PF syntax’, 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
01
Part II The crash-proof debate
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.05ott
89
104
16
Article
9
01
Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG
1
A01
Dennis Ott
Ott, Dennis
Dennis
Ott
Department of Linguistics, Harvard University
01
It is argued that the notions “well-formedness” and “grammaticality,” inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [± 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 “crash-proof” 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 “grammatical” from “ungrammatical” 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
01
A tale of two minimalisms
A
tale of two minimalisms
Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative
1
A01
Cedric Boeckx
Boeckx, Cedric
Cedric
Boeckx
ICREA/UAB
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.07eps
125
142
18
Article
11
01
Uninterpretable features
What are they and what do they do?
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 “crash” and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky’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
01
Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism
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 “crash-proof” 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 ‘crash-proof’ after all.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.09sur
167
212
46
Article
13
01
Toward a strongly derivational syntax
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
01
On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars
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 & 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’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 ‘third factor’ as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.11bro
245
268
24
Article
15
01
Crash-proof syntax and filters
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 “objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems” should be dismissed as irrelevant.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.12cha
269
298
30
Article
16
01
Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar
1
A01
Rui P. Chaves
Chaves, Rui P.
Rui P.
Chaves
Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY
01
The problem of obtaining a ‘crash-proof syntax’ 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 & 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 – and often does – go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance ‘crashes’. 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
01
Index
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
01
Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars
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 & 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
01
Preface & Acknowledgments
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.00loc
xi
1
Miscellaneous
2
01
List of contributors
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.01put
1
12
12
Article
3
01
Exploring crash-proof grammars
An introduction
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
01
Part I Applications of crash-proof grammar
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.02oua
15
30
16
Article
5
01
Computation efficiency and feature inheritance in crash-proof syntax
1
A01
Hamid Ouali
Ouali, Hamid
Hamid
Ouali
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
01
Frampton & Guttmann (2002) argue that a language design that assumes “crashing derivations” would seem to be less computationally efficient than a design which outputs only convergent derivations. Therefore, they advocate a “crash-proof” 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’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
01
Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features
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 “ activity” 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
01
The Empty Left Edge Condition
The
Empty Left Edge Condition
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 ‘pro drop parametric’ factor and that there are no inherent or lexical differences between ‘different types’ 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 ‘syntax’ in the traditional sense is actually morphosyntax or ‘PF syntax’, 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
01
Part II The crash-proof debate
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.05ott
89
104
16
Article
9
01
Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG
1
A01
Dennis Ott
Ott, Dennis
Dennis
Ott
Department of Linguistics, Harvard University
01
It is argued that the notions “well-formedness” and “grammaticality,” inspired by formal-language theory, are not necessarily relevant for the study of natural language. The assumption that a [± 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 “crash-proof” 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 “grammatical” from “ungrammatical” 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
01
A tale of two minimalisms
A
tale of two minimalisms
Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative
1
A01
Cedric Boeckx
Boeckx, Cedric
Cedric
Boeckx
ICREA/UAB
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.07eps
125
142
18
Article
11
01
Uninterpretable features
What are they and what do they do?
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 “crash” and suggests a way to rectify it. Section 2 reveals a pervasive empirical problem confronting Chomsky’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
01
Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism
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 “crash-proof” 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 ‘crash-proof’ after all.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.09sur
167
212
46
Article
13
01
Toward a strongly derivational syntax
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
01
On the mathematical foundations of crash-proof grammars
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 & 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’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 ‘third factor’ as the design feature of language (Chomsky 2005) on the other hand.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.11bro
245
268
24
Article
15
01
Crash-proof syntax and filters
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 “objects that are well-formed and satisfy conditions imposed by the interface systems” should be dismissed as irrelevant.
10
01
JB code
lfab.3.12cha
269
298
30
Article
16
01
Crash-free syntax and crash phenomena in model-theoretic grammar
1
A01
Rui P. Chaves
Chaves, Rui P.
Rui P.
Chaves
Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo – SUNY
01
The problem of obtaining a ‘crash-proof syntax’ 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 & 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 – and often does – go awry during production and comprehension. A proper general theory of language should account for such empirically motivated performance ‘crashes’. 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
01
Index
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