Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
8 - On the Rationality of Grammar
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
Universal grammar in its traditional sense is nothing more (or less) than the attempt to look at grammar as a scientific domain and hence with an interest in developing a general grammar. But what is its content? Mentioning recursion or Merge leaves us with formal and generic principles; and mentioning putative universal principles of a formal sort such as the Case filter and attributing this to the genome leaves us with something that we cannot explain (why does Case exist?). Yet grammar may have a distinct content of its own, organizing meaning in a way that we see in no non-grammatical semantic system. This content, I argue, is mapped from abstract grammatical relations of which Case is one type, and which may be foundational for the human-specific cognitive phenotype as such.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 164 - 181Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Arnauld, A. and Lancelot, C. 1660/1676/1966. Grammaire generale et raisonnee ou La Grammaire de Port Royal. Grammatica Universalis, I. Stuttgart Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Binder, J. and Desai, R. 2011. “The neurobiology of semantic memory.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15:11, 527–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boskovic, Z. 1995. “Case properties of clauses and the greed principle.” Studia Linguistica 49, 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000a. “Minimalist inquiries.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000b. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. “Three factors in language design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
DeVilliers, J. 2014. “What kind of concepts need language?” Language Sciences 46B, 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2014. The rationality of case. Language Sciences 46(B), 133–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2017. “Universal grammar and philosophy of mind.” In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37–60.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Sheehan, M. 2015. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Uriagereka, J. 2006. “On the metaphysics of linguistics.” Erkenntnis 65:1, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, C. and Kiparsky, P.. 1970. “Fact.” In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–173.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. “Partitive Case and Aspect.” In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 265–307.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. “Subjects in Japanese and English.” PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. “Severing the distribution of PRO from Case.” Syntax 9:2, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2008. “Two routes of control: Evidence from Case transmission in Russian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing.” In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), ESCOL '91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications, 234–253.Google Scholar
Martín, T. 2012. “Deconstructing Catalan object clitics.” PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Martín, T. and Hinzen, W. 2014. “The grammar of the essential indexical.” Lingua 148, 95–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattos, O. and Hinzen, W. 2015. “The linguistic roots of natural pedagogy.” Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadden, T. 2004. “The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface.” PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndayiragije, J. 2012. “On raising out of control.” Linguistic Inquiry 43:2, 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. 2011. “Case.” In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–72.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. and Hinzen, W. 2011. “Moving towards the edge.” Linguistic Analysis 37, 405–458.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. “The syntax of person, tense and speech features.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2008. “The case of PRO.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 403–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2007. “Interpreting uninterpretable features.” Linguistic Analysis 3–4, 375–413.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 2010. “The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords.” Lingua 120, 1522–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. deMena 2010. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. “Against the Movement Theory of Control: Another argument from Icelandic.” Linguistic Inquiry 43:2, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 14
- Cited by