I Like This Analysis, but I Don’t Think Every Linguist Will: Syntactic NOT-Transportation, VP Ellipsis and VP Pronominalisation

In this article I consider some recent objections raised against the syntactic treatment of negation in English multiclausal structures, in particular what has been called NEG-raising. I argue that the objections based on pronominalisation and ellipsis presented in the recent literature do pose a problem for syntactic accounts of the mechanisms of so-called NOT-transportation that rely on a rule of leftwards movement, as is customary in generative grammar. However, there is an alternative syntactic treatment that assumes that negation originates as a higher predicate and is subject to a rule of lowering. I show that a syntactic theory of NOT-transportation is tenable and accounts for the problematic data if NEG-raising is replaced, in the analysis of the cases considered here, by a rule of NEG-lowering.

Why is Generative Grammar Recursive?

A familiar argument goes as follows: natural languages have infinitely many sentences, finite representation of infinite sets requires recursion; therefore any adequate account of linguistic competence will require some kind of recursive device. The first part of this paper argues that this argument is not convincing. The second part argues that it was not the original reason recursive devices were introduced into generative linguistics. The real basis for the use of recursive devices stems from a deeper philosophical concern; a grammar that functions merely as a metalanguage would not be explanatorily adequate as it would merely push the problem of explaining linguistic competence back to another level. The paper traces this concern from Zellig Harris and Chomsky’s early work in generative linguistics and presents some implications.

The Beauty of Deep Structure

This chapter charts the rise of Noam Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative Grammar, from its cornerstone role in the cognitive revolution up to its widely heralded realization in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. That realization featured the development of an evocative concept, Deep Structure, a brilliant nexus of meaning and structure that integrates seamlessly with Chomsky’s companion idea, Universal Grammar, the notion that all languages share a critical, genetically encoded core. At a technical level, Deep Structure concentrated meaning because of the Katz-Postal Principle, stipulating that transformations cannot change meaning. Transformations rearrange structure while keeping meaning stable. The appeal of Deep Structure and Universal Grammar helped Transformational Grammar propagate rapidly into language classrooms, literary studies, stylistics, and computer science, gave massive impetus to the emergence of psycholinguistics, attracted substantial military and educational funding, and featured prominently in Chomsky’s meteoric intellectual stardom.

Gender Representation in the Lexical Functional Grammar

Gender marking is a language universal, although some languages have a stronger Gender-marking grammar. The Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), a linguistic theory, has a set of rules and levels to render for Gender marking. Bornee and developed within the larger framework of the Generative Grammar, the Lexical Functional Grammar has become a standalone autonomous theoretical theory. This paper draws data from French language to present a comprehensive development of Gender-marking analysis within the Lexical Functional Grammar Framework. Fundamentally, the LSG posits for four phrase structures, which are the C-structure representing lexical entries, the F-structure, which deals with the functional information, the A-structure, which structures predicate-argument relationships, and the ơ-structure, which handles semantic representations. Although the grammatical gender is arrayed all over the four structures, it is mainly presented in this paper as a feature in the lexicon, typically integrated in the C-structure and F-structure mapping.

The Correlation between Old and New Linguistic Paradigms: A Literature Review Based on Kuhn’s School of Thoughts

This study aims to assess the evidence regarding the relationship between previous and new schools of linguistics. According to Kuhn (1970), old linguistic paradigms incorporate vocabulary and apparatus from previous or traditional paradigms. In particular, this review addresses the Question: Do new paradigms in linguistic arise from old or previous ones, as Kuhn suggested? The study is significant in understanding emerging schools of linguistics based on previous ones. A qualitative literature review was applied to compare new and old schools of linguistics. According to the findings, there is substantial evidence that functionalism, structuralism, and Transformational-Generative Grammar support Kuhn's argument. Most notably, the changes of the transformational-generative grammar from a consistent and straightforward Standard Theory to an improved Extended Standard Theory, and finally, to the Minimalist Program, point towards the same conclusion. Interestingly, the transformations demonstrate how new paradigms arise from old paradigms without borrowing many concepts, terms, and experiments from them. This study draws the attention of linguists in the 21st Century to pay closer attention to the trends in schools of linguistics. 

Lexicalised Locality: Local Domains and Non-Local Dependencies in a Lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammar

Contemporary generative grammar assumes that syntactic structure is best described in terms of sets, and that locality conditions, as well as cross-linguistic variation, is determined at the level of designated functional heads. Syntactic operations (merge, MERGE, etc.) build a structure by deriving sets from lexical atoms and recursively (and monotonically) yielding sets of sets. Additional restrictions over the format of structural descriptions limit the number of elements involved in each operation to two at each derivational step, a head and a non-head. In this paper, we will explore an alternative direction for minimalist inquiry based on previous work, e.g., Frank (2002, 2006), albeit under novel assumptions. We propose a view of syntactic structure as a specification of relations in graphs, which correspond to the extended projection of lexical heads; these are elementary trees in Tree Adjoining Grammars. We present empirical motivation for a lexicalised approach to structure building, where the units of the grammar are elementary trees. Our proposal will be based on cross-linguistic evidence; we will consider the structure of elementary trees in Spanish, English and German. We will also explore the consequences of assuming that nodes in elementary trees are addresses for purposes of tree composition operations, substitution and adjunction.

On a Chomskyan postulation in conceptual metaphor theory

This paper is an attempt to make a comparison between Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory and Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar, and to demonstrate a Chomskyan postulation in the former. Although Lakoff and Johnson regard Chomsky’s linguistics as a modern representative of traditional Western philosophies of language that tend to highlight the a priori assumptions rather than empirical findings, the cognitive theory of metaphor contains a Chomskyan metaphysical assumption as its most important notion, i.e. the assumption of conceptual metaphors. Thus, what the present paper wants to argue with ample evidence is that Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory resembles Chomsky’s logic and that their notion of conceptual metaphors is very much a Chomskyan postulation. What the present study tries to further demonstrate is that the abovementioned two theories actually have many points in common, which also implies that Lakoff and Johnson have failed to avoid the paradigm that they believe is conflicting with their own.