- Arguments and Structure: Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence - Google книги
- Refine your editions:
- Login using
Fillmore, C, Kay, P. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language , — Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure.
- Noam Chomsky’s colorless green idea: “corpus linguistics doesn’t mean anything”.
- Ransacked Heart (Mills & Boon Vintage 90s Modern)?
- Saving Daylight.
- Arguments and structure : studies on the architecture of the sentence (Book, ) [opthropitlasub.cf];
- Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary & Legal Studies: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in ... Studies (Post-Contemporary Interventions).
Goldsmith, J. Autosegmental phonology.
Arguments and Structure: Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence - Google книги
Gopnik, M. Some evidence for impaired grammars. In Jackendoff, R. Hale, K. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. Halle, M. Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation. Linguistic theory and psychological, reality. Hankamer, J. Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In Marslen-Wilson, W. Hare, M. Default generalization in connectionist networks. Language and Cognitive Processes , — Jackendoff, R. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure.
Semantics and cognition. Semantic structures. Conceptual semantics and cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics , — The architecture of the language faculty.
Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, J. The structure of a semantic theory. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Lakoff, G. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Landau, B. Language and experience: Evidence from, the blind child. Langacker, R.
Foundations of cognitive grammar , volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press. The symbolic nature of cognitive grammar: The meaning of of and of -periphrasis. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In Tomasello, M. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Levin, B. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Liberman, M. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Macnamara, J. Names for things. Marantz, A.
- The Power and Grace Between Nasty or Nice: Replacing Entitlement, Narcissism, and Incivility with Knowledge, Caring, and Genuine Self-Esteem.
- What’s in the Lexicon?;
- Other Subject Areas.
On the nature of grammatical relations. The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. In Stowell, T. San Diego: Academic Press.
Marcus, G. Rethinking eliminative connectionism.
Cognitive Psychology , — The algebraic mind. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Unfortunately, much of the criticism in the literature misses the mark, as it ignores the kind of empirical arguments Chomsky adduces in support of the conclusion that there is innate structure. It is important to note that nativism for Chomsky is not an a priori claim, it is a claim based on empirical evidence and arguments, which we cannot review here but which are amply represented in the work of Chomsky and colleagues. More balanced, yet still critical, collections are Harman , Piattelli-Palmarini , and Otero With Minimalism, there has also been an important yet fairly unrecognized change outside of Chomskyan circles.
Chomsky , p. Put differently, the goal is to see how little language-specific innateness is required while still being able to account for the structures and representations every healthy child acquires. This creates avenues for collaborative work with scholars who have, for example, studied the input to acquisition very carefully or scholars who argue that most of language acquisition can be derived by properties of general cognition.
Another area of debate concerns the analysis of long-distance dependencies in generative approaches to language. Chomskyan approaches have always argued that some long-distance dependencies are created by movement, that is, a gap is created by moving a filler to its surface position or the movement can be covert, as has been argued, e.
It would take us too far afield to discuss the rich set of arguments involved in distinguishing these alternatives. It seems fair to say that the different formal frameworks operate independently of each other and by and large constitute their own research programs even though the many differences may be less deep than it appears, cf. Sells, , for such an argument.
Refine your editions:
Rather, we will take issue with the oft-made claim that Chomsky has neglected, or even avoided, semantics in his theories of grammar see, e. This assessment is somewhat curious given that Chomsky , p. Consider the well-known contrast between 11 and 12 Chomsky, , p. Each of these sentences only has one meaning. Chomsky argued that a descriptively adequate grammar needs to assign different syntactic structures to 11 and 12 in order for their semantic interpretation to be different.
This grammar also needs to ensure that 15 is ambiguous, with both types of meanings Pietroski, For Chomsky, semantics is interpretive, meaning that it is based on mechanisms that interpret the syntactic structure. A range of additional examples can be provided; see Hinzen and Pietroski What Chomsky is skeptical of, is that it is possible to provide explanatory theories of meaning semantics and pragmatics. This is partly because of his skepticism towards providing scientific theories of language production and communication in general.
Both production and communication involve more mental faculties than just language, which is partly why Chomsky has very little to say about language use, as he is interested in understanding the structure underlying language use. Smith and Allott provide additional comprehensive discussion of these issues. See the Chomsky-Foucault debate on human nature. Anthony, L.