Advertisement

Modularity, Phi-Features, and Repairs

  • Milan RezacEmail author
Chapter
  • 508 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 81)

Abstract

Chapter 1 introduces the work. It presents the modular architecture of cognition, and the organization of the language faculty into the modules of syntax and its interfacing systems of realization (PF) and interpretation (LF). Phi-features are a common alphabet shared by these systems, permitting investigation of their distinctive characteristics and of their interactions. Among the phi-features of syntax, some are illegible to its interfacing systems: the uninterpretable phi-features of agreement dependencies. The chapter examines the nature of (un)intepretability, agreement, and syntactic versus morphological phi-phenomena. Syntactic features uninterpretable to PF/LF must be eliminated through the formation of syntactic dependencies. This requirement is extended to the new type of dependency studied in this work: last-resort phi-Agree to repair illegible syntactic structures.

Keywords

Lexical Item Direct Object Modular Architecture Indirect Object Minimalist Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2007. Morphology ≠ syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 325–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adger, David. 1994. Functional heads and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  4. Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83: 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlow, Michael. 1988. A situated theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. Barrett, H. Clark. 2005. Enzymatic computation and cognitive modularity. Mind and Language 20: 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett, H. Clark, and Robert Kurzban. 2006. Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review 113: 628–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, David. 2003. Person-hierarchies and the origin of asymmetries in Totonac verbal paradigms. Linguistic Atlantica 23: 35–68.Google Scholar
  11. Bever, Thomas G. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. In Of minds and language, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bird, Steven, and Ewan E. Klein. 1994. Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20: 455–491.Google Scholar
  13. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? In Phi theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bresnan Joan, and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 521–533.Google Scholar
  21. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, ed. 2005. The innate mind, vol. 1: Structure and contents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, ed. 2007. The innate mind, vol. 3: Foundations and the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Phonological constraints on morphological rules. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 144–148. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Collins, Christopher. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Coltheart, Max. 1999. Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Corbett, Greville. 2003. Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 155–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Dell, Gary. S., and Reich, Peter A. 1981. Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995a. Binding, expletives, and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.Google Scholar
  38. Den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. In The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.Google Scholar
  39. Déprez, Viviane. 1998. Semantic effects of agreement: The case of French past participle agreement. Probus 10: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1986. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Eagleman, David M. 2001. Visual illusions and neurobiology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2: 920–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ferreira, Fernanda, and Benjamin Swets. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Twenty-first century psycholinguistics, ed. Anne Cutler, 263–278. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Freidin, Robert and Rex A. Sprouse. 1991. Lexical case phenomena. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 392–416. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  50. García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.Google Scholar
  51. Gregory, Richard. Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 352: 1121–1127.Google Scholar
  52. Griffin, Zenzi M., and Victor S. Ferreira. 2006. Properties of spoken language production. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. Matthew J. Traxler and Morton A. Gernsbacher, 21–60. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  53. Groat, Erich. 1997. A derivational program for syntactic theory. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  54. Gutierrez-Rexach, Javier. 2000. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16: 315–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1↔2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jacobson, Pauline. 1997. Where (if anywhere) is transderivationality located? In The limits of syntax, ed. Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 303–336. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, Case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  62. Jónsson, Johannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  63. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  64. Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. Frans Plank, 61–77. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  66. Kim, Yookyung, and Stanley Peters. 1998. Semantic and pragmatic context-dependence: The case of reciprocals. In Is the best good enough?, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 221–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Kimball, John, and Judith Aissen. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.Google Scholar
  68. Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kuno, Susumu. 2005. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 315–343. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. Lasnik, Howard, and Randall Hendrick. 2003. Steps toward a minimal theory of anaphora. In Minimal syntax, ed. Randall Hendrick, 124–151. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lasnik, Howard, and Nicholas Sobin. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lavine, James and Robert Freidin. 2002. The subject of defective Tense in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 253–290.Google Scholar
  75. Legendre, Geraldine. 1990. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65: 752–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levinson, Stephen C. 2005. Deixis. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  77. Marantz, Alec. 2000 [1991]. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  78. Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Fransico: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  79. McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language 58: 574–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agreement. In Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax, in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik, 331–374. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Palmer, Stephen E. 1999. Vision science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Perlmutter, David M. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 141–200.Google Scholar
  83. Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough?, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 337–384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. Phillips, Colin, Matt Wagers, and Ellen Lau. forthcoming. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time comprehension. In Language and linguistics compass. On-line: www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/linguistics/.
  85. Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
  86. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Potts, Christopher. 2002. Comparative economy conditions in natural language syntax. Paper presented at the North American Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information, Workshop on Model-Theoretic Syntax, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, June 28, 2002.Google Scholar
  88. Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–365.Google Scholar
  89. Raftopoulos, Athanassios. 2001. Is perception informationally encapsulted? The issue of the theory-ladenness of perception. Cognitive Science 25: 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers TL-95-002. Utrecht: Utrecht University/OTS.Google Scholar
  91. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rezac, Milan. 2004a. Elements of cyclic syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  93. Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.Google Scholar
  94. Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms., UMR 7023 CNRS Université de Paris 8.Google Scholar
  95. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Safir, Kenneth. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 603–638.Google Scholar
  99. Safir, Kenneth. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–689Google Scholar
  100. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schütze, Carson T. 1993. Towards a Minimalist account of quirky Case and licensing in Icelandic. In Papers on Case and agreement 2, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 321–375. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  102. Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  103. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Icelandic vs. Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sperber, Dan. 2002. In defense of massive modularity. In Language, brain and cognitive development, ed. Emannuel Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  106. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson (ed). 2007. Person reference in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Tasmowski, Liliane. 1985. Faire infinitif. In Les constructions de la phrase française, ed. Ludo Melis, Liliane Tasmowski, Paul Verluyten, and Dominique Willems, 223–365. Gent: Communication and Cognition.Google Scholar
  108. Tseng, Jesse. 2005. Prepositions and complement selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, ed. Aline Villavicencio and Valia Kordoni, 11–19. University of Essex.Google Scholar
  109. Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76: 799–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Winter, Yoad. 2002. Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Yang, Charles. 1997. Minimal computation. M.Sc. thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris 8Saint Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations