Why Yon the centrality of syntax in the architecture of grammar

  1. Irurtzun, Aritz 1
  1. 1 University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) & HiTT
Aldizkaria:
Catalan journal of linguistics

ISSN: 1695-6885

Argitalpen urtea: 2009

Zenbakien izenburua: Spelling-out Universal Grammar

Alea: 8

Orrialdeak: 141-160

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.5565/REV/CATJL.145 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Catalan journal of linguistics

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

I defend the centrality of the syntactic module within the general architecture of grammar. According to this model of the language faculty, syntax creates structures that are interpreted at the interfaces with the Articularory-Perceptual and Conceptual-Intentional systems. Thus, I show that the classic inverted-Y model of the architecture of grammar is better suited than alternative “parallel architectures” (cf. Jackendoff (1997 et seq. )) when accounting for interface phenomena. In order to do that, I discuss an interface phenomenon like focus that, according to some scholars, shows the need of a more articulated architecture of the grammar than the classic Y-model. I will argue that the properties of focus bear testimony to the fact that syntax outranks both interpretive modules.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Arnaudova, Olga (2003). Focus and Bulgarian clause structure, University of Ottawa, doctoral dissertation.
  • Arregi, Karlos (2003). Focus on Basque Movements, MIT, doctoral dissertation.
  • Camacho, María Victoria (2005). “En torno a la arquitectura de la gramática en el modelo generativista: revisión y nuevas perspectivas”. In Nepomuceno, Ángel, Salguero Francisco José; Soler, Fernando (eds.). Estudios de Lógica y Lenguaje I. Seville: Mergablum, pp.125-146.
  • Chomsky, Noam (2005). “Three factors in language design”. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.
  • Chomsky, Noam (2000). “Minimalist inquiries: the framework”. In Martin, Roger. Michaels, David; Uriagereka, Juan (eds.). Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 89-155.
  • Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, Noam; Lasnik, Howard (1977). “Filters and Control”. Linguistic Inquiry 8- 3: 425-504.
  • Cinque, Guigliemo (1993). “A null theory of phrase and compound stress”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-298.
  • Culicover, Peter W.; Jackendoff, Ray (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dobashi, Yoshihito (2003). Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. Cornell University, doctoral dissertation.
  • Dominey, Peter Ford (2003). “A Conceptuocentric Shift in the Characterization of Language”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26-6: 674-675.
  • Elordieta, Arantzazu (2001). Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Leiden University, doctoral dissertation.
  • Erteschik-Shir, Nomi; Strahov, Natalia (2004). “Focus Structure Architecture and PSyntax”. Lingua 114: 301-323.
  • Freidin, Robert, “Imaginary Mistakes versus Real Problems in Generative Grammar”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26-6: 677-678.
  • Garrod, Simon; Pickering, Martin J. (2003). “Linguistics fit for dialogue”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26-6: 678-678.
  • Georgiafentis, Michalis (2004). Focus and word order variation in Greek. Reading University, doctoral dissertation.
  • Gervain, Judith (2003). “Where is the Lexicon?”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26-6: 678-679.
  • Halle, Morris; Marantz, Alec (1993). “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”. In Hale, Kennet; Keyser, Samuel-Jay (eds.). The View from Building 20. Cambridge: Mit Press, pp. 111-176.
  • Halle, Morris; Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • van der Hulst, Harry (2006). “On the Parallel Organization of Linguistic Components”. Lingua 116: 657-688.
  • Irurtzun, Aritz (2008). “A Derivational Approach to the Focus Structure”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53-2/3: 355-386.
  • Irurtzun, Aritz (2007). The Grammar of Focus at the Interfaces. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), doctoral dissertation.
  • Ishihara, Sinichiro (2000). “Stress, focus, and scrambling in Japanese”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: 142-175.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2007a). “A Parallel Architecture Perspective on Language Processing”. Brain Research 1146: 2-22.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2007b). Language, Conciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2003). “Toward better mutual understanding”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26-6: 695-707.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (1998). “The Architecture of the Language Faculty: A Neominimalist Perspective”. In Culicover, Peter; McNally, Louise (eds.). Syntax & Semantics: The Limits of Syntax (vol. 29). New York: Academic Press, pp. 19-46.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Kayne, Richard (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Marantz, Alec (1997). “‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom”. MIT, unpublished manuscript.
  • Miller, Philip H.; Pullum, Geoffrey; Zwicky, Arnold M. (1997). “The principle of phonology-free syntax: four apparent counterexamples in French”. Journal of Linguistics 33. 67-90.
  • Neeleman, Ad; Reinhart; Tanya (1998). “Scrambling and the PF interface”. In Butt, Miriam; Geuder; Wilhem (eds.). The projection of arguments; Lexical and compositional factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309-353.
  • Piñango, María Mercedes (2006). “Understanding the architecture of language: the possible role of neurology”. Trends in Conitie Sciences 10-2: 49-51.
  • Reinhart, Tanya (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Reinhart, Tanya (1995). “Interface strategies”. OTS Working Papers in Linguistic, TL95-002, Utrecht: Utrecht University.
  • Rizzi, Luigi (1997). “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.). Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281-337.
  • Samuels, Bridget (2009). The Structure of Phonological Theory, Harvard University, doctoral dissertation.
  • Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). “GIVENness, AVOIDF, and other constraints on the placement of accent”, Natural Language Semantics 7: 141-177.
  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1995). “Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing”. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.). The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 550-569.
  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1986). “On derived domains in sentence phonology”, Phonology Yearbook 3: 371-405.
  • Szendröi, Kriszta (2001). Focus and the syntax-phonology interface, University College London, doctoral dissertation.
  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). “On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases”. Linguistic Inquiry 90-2: 219-255.
  • Uriagereka, Juan (1999). “Multiple spell out”. Epstein, Samuel David; Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Working minimalism. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 251-282.
  • Vallduví, Enric (1995). “Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan”. In Kiss, Katalin É. (ed.). Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 122-152.
  • Wagner. Michael (2007). “Prosody and Recursion in Coordinate Structures and Beyond”. Cornell University, unpublished manuscript.
  • Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa; Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (2000). “Phrasal stress and syntax”. In van Oostendorp, Mark; Anagnastopoulou, Elena (eds.). Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg, electronic publication. URL: http://www.roquade.nl/meertens/ progressingrammar/index.html
Datuen iturria: Dialnet