By Peter W. Culicover
This e-book brings jointly Peter Culicover's most vital observations at the nature of syntax and its position in the structure of language. Over 4 a long time he has sought to appreciate the psychological approach during which linguistic expressions are processed. This has led him to re-formulate the stability among the necessities of interpretation and the function of syntactic constitution; to check the character of the empirical foundation during which specific structural analyses will be utilized to linguistic expressions; and to contemplate the level to which such analyses mirror decisions dependent not just on linguistic competence yet on computations built during buying or utilizing a language.
After a quick a retrospective the writer opens the booklet with the better Syntax speculation, the pioneering article written with Ray Jackendoff that essentially rebalances the weather of grammar. The paintings is then divided into elements involved commonly with representations, buildings, and computation. The chapters are supplied with contextual headnotes and footnote references to next paintings, yet are in a different way published basically as they first appeared.
Peter Culicover's vigorous and unique views on syntax and grammar will attract all theoretical linguists and their complicated scholars.
Read Online or Download Explaining Syntax: Representations, Structures, and Computation PDF
Similar cognitive books
Speech belief and Spoken observe popularity gains contributions from the field’s best scientists, and covers contemporary advancements and present concerns within the learn of cognitive and neural mechanisms that take styles of air vibrations and switch them ‘magically’ into that means. the quantity makes a distinct theoretical contribution in linking behavioural and cognitive neuroscience study, and slicing throughout conventional strands of analysis, comparable to grownup and developmental processing.
- Handbook of Missing Persons
- Cognitive Behavioural Coaching in Practice: An Evidence Based Approach
- Psychedelic Reflections
- Core Competencies in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: Becoming a Highly Effective and Competent Cognitive-Behavioral Therapist
- Representing Space in Cognition: Interrelations of behaviour, language, and formal models
- Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: 13th Irish Conference, AICS 2002 Limerick, Ireland, September 12–13, 2002 Proceedings
Additional info for Explaining Syntax: Representations, Structures, and Computation
3 How do you derive an OM-sentence? We arrive ﬁnally at the question of how we should derive OM-sentences, now that all of the ‘reasonable’ possibilities have been eliminated. All that is left to us are several unreasonable possibilities. By elimination the deep structure of an OM-sentence must be (80). (80) NP and S There are still two possibilities open to us here, nevertheless. First of all, (80) might be exactly the deep structure. Alternatively, the deep structure might be (80) plus a number of dummies hovering around the NP, so that the actual deep structure of one more can of beer and I’m leaving would be something like the following.
3 S 4 Z 5 ) 2 ... 4 5 What TDEL says is that in order to derive OM-sentences we must delete everything from the antecedent sentence except one noun phrase. An objection to TDEL on metatheoretical grounds is that the deletion takes place without any condition of identity between the deleted material and other material in the sentence being met. Thus we see that deletion in TDEL is nonrecoverable, in the sense of Chomsky (1964; 1965). c Arguments along essentially the same lines are made against deletion analyses of Bare Argument Ellipsis and sluicing in Culicover and Jackendoff (2005; 2012).
In order for the consequential interpretation to be acceptable the following condition must be met: (75) The event or the state described by S (henceforth ‘E(S)’) must be able to follow from the event or the state described by the NP (henceforth ‘E(NP)’). In order for there to be an independent acceptable sequential interpretation the condition in (76) must hold. (76) E(S) must be able to follow E(NP) in time without following from it. It is impossible for a consequential interpretation to exist where a sequential interpretation cannot, because generally an event cannot follow from another event without following it as well.