Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
- -
.
– – – . . :
2
Some architectural issues ina minimalist setting
2.1 Introduction
Minimalism (at least as presented here) takes GB as its starting point. Thereason for this is twofold. First, GB is a very successful theory of grammarwith a very interesting theoretical structure and ample empirical coverage.The former property provides grist for the methodological concerns thatminimalism highlights. The latter property permits discussion to movebeyond mere methodology by setting empirical bars for prospective the-ories to clear. Second, GB is the most fully worked out version of a P&P-approach to UG. As such, considering a GB-style theory from the vantagepoint of minimalist methodological concerns is a good way of getting intosubstantive issues quickly. So, let’s start!Section 2.2 will review the major architectural properties that are sharedby most (if not all) incarnations of GB. Section 2.3 will then introduce somebasic minimalist qualms with the GB-architecture of the grammar, focusingon its levels of representation and critically evaluating the evidence in favorof S-Structure(SS) and D-Structure(DS).The exerciseof abolishing SS andDSwillintroducesomekeyminimalistthemesandtechnicalproposals,tobefurther explored in the subsequent chapters. The upshot of this chapter is asimplified architecture of the grammar consisting solely of the only trueinterfacelevels,LogicalForm(LF)andPhoneticForm(PF).Section2.4willwrap up and sketch the picture of the grammar developed up to that point.
2.2 Main properties of a GB-style theory
1
2.2.1 General architecture
First and foremost, GB has a P&P-architecture. This means that UG istaken to be composed of principles with open parameter values that are set
1 This overview section recaps the cornerstones of GB. For a more comprehensive anddetailed presentation, see, for example, Radford (1988), Haegeman (1994), Roberts(1996), or Carnie (2001).
19
 
- -
.
– – – . . :
by experience, i.e. by PLD. The driving force behind P&P-theories is theneedtoanswerPlato’sprobleminthedomainoflanguage.Byhavinginnategeneral principles with open parameter values, one can deal with two basicfacts that characterize language acquisition: (i) it’s considerably fast despitethe very serious deficiency in the data that the child can use in fixing his orher competence, and (ii) languages display an intricate surface variation.This dual problem is adequately accommodated if P&P is roughly correct.The ease of acquisition is due to the rich innate principles that the childcomes equipped with. In turn, the variation can be traced to the fact thatdifferent parameter values can result in significantly different outputs.
2.2.2 Levels of representation
GB-theories identify four significant levels of grammatical representation:D-Structure (DS), S-Structure (SS), Logical Form (LF), and PhoneticForm (PF). These levels are formal objects with specific functional andsubstantive characteristics. Let’s consider these.2.2.2.1 D-StructureDS is substantively described as the phrase marker at which ‘‘pure GF-
’’ isrepresented, i.e. the one-to-one correspondence between grammatical func-tion and thematic or
-role. This means that DS is where an expression’slogical/thematicrole
perfectly coincideswithits grammatical function
GF 
:logicalsubjectsareDS(grammatical)subjects,logicalobjectsareDS(gram-matical)objects,etc.Thus,atDS,positionsthatarethematicallyactivemustall be filled and positions with no thematic import must be left empty.Anexampleortwowillhelpfixideas.Considertheverbsin(1),forinstance:
(1) John persuaded Harry to kiss Mary.
Thematically,
persuade
requires a ‘‘persuader,’’ a ‘‘persuadee,’’ and a pro-positional complement, whereas
kiss
requires a ‘‘kisser’’ and a ‘‘kissee.’’Given that (1) is an acceptable sentence, each of these
-roles must thencorrespond to filled positions in its DS representation, as illustrated in (2):
(2) DS:[ John
persuader
persuaded Harry
persuadee
[
ec
kisser
to kissMary
kissee
]
proposition
]
The details of constructions like (1) are not important here. What is key isthat once we assume the notion of DS, (2) must have a filler in the positionassociatedwiththe‘‘kisser’’
-role,despitethefactthatit’snotphonetically20
Understanding Minimalism
 
- -
.
– – – . . :
realized. In other words, this position is filled by a (phonetically) emptycategory (
ec
).In GB, theempty categoryin(2)is an obligatorilycontrolledPRO, whose antecedent is
Harry
.By contrast, let’s now consider the verbs of the sentences in
(3) a. John seems to like Mary.b. It seems that John likes Mary.
Like
has two
-roles to assign (the ‘‘liker’’ and the ‘‘likee’’), whereas
seem
has only one
-role to assign to its propositional complement. Crucially, itdoesn’tassigna
-roletothepositionoccupiedby
John
in(3a),ascanbeseenbythefactthatthispositionmaybefilledbyanexpletivein(3b).Thismeansthat
John
in (3a) wasn’t base-generated in the position where it appears, butmusthavegottentheretransformationally.Thus,thematrixsubjectpositionof the DS representation of (3a) is filled by nothing at all, not even a nullexpression, as shown in (4), where
Á
represents an empty position.
(4) DS:[
Á
seems [ John
liker
to like Mary
likee
]
proposition
]
As for its functional characterization, DS is defined as the ‘‘startingpoint’’ for a derivation; that is, it’s the phrase marker that is the output of phrase-structure operations pluslexical insertion and the input to transfor-mational operations. By beingthe locus of phrase-structure rules, DS is thelocus of a grammar’s recursivity. By being the input to the computationsthat willleadto an LF object and a PF object, DS also ensures thatthe pairform/meaning is compatible in the sense that the two objects are based onthe same lexical resources; after all, any adequate theory of grammar mustensure that the PF output associated with the sentence in (5) should mean‘MarylikesJohn’andnot‘Idon’tthinkthatMarylikesJohn’,forinstance.
(5) Mary likes John.
There’s some interesting evidence for DS within GB. The best of itrevolves around distinguishing raising from control, which we’ll return toinsection2.3.2.2.There’salsosomeinterestingevidenceagainsttheexistenceofaDSlevelthatwe’llreviewwhenweconsiderminimalistobjectionstoDS.2.2.2.2 S-StructureSS can be functionally characterized as the point in which the derivationsplits, sending off one copy to PF for phonetic interpretation and one copyto LF for semantic interpretation. Substantively, SS is the phrase marker
Some architectural issues in a minimalist setting
21
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more