26.3589, Review: Ling Theories; Syntax: Boeckx (2014)

The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Tue Aug 11 15:44:40 UTC 2015


LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3589. Tue Aug 11 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.3589, Review: Ling Theories; Syntax: Boeckx (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:44:08
From: Aroldo de Andrade [aroldo.andrade at gmail.com]
Subject: Elementary Syntactic Structures

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36044537


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-4403.html

AUTHOR: Cedric  Boeckx
TITLE: Elementary Syntactic Structures
SUBTITLE: Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax
SERIES TITLE: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 144
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Aroldo Leal de Andrade, Universidade Estadual de Campinas

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The book “Elementary Syntactic Structures”, by Cedric Boeckx, has a preface, five chapters and three appendices. Chapter 1 presents some biolinguistic considerations used to motivate the answer to be developed. Chapter 2 puts forward the operation ''Bare Merge,'' understood as unbounded combine, and its consequences for the development of a universal, invariant, and minimally specified syntax. Chapter 3 deals with the properties that should be ascribed to the external systems, allowing the creation of more elaborate grammatical structures. Chapter 4 suggests dealing with variation in terms of mappings between the syntax and the sensory-motor interface. Chapter 5 briefly invites interdisciplinary research on biolinguistics and syntax, by way of conclusion. 

Chapter 1, ‘Biolinguistic concerns' paves the way for the discussion proposed in the book. The author assumes 'lexicocentrism' as an internal obstacle to the development of a biologically grounded linguistics, assumed to be the only one leading the field ''beyond explanatory adequacy.'' For Boeckx, lexicocentrism takes generativists to a mistake, i.e., to explain Universal Grammar 'in medias res', i.e., starting with the lexicon, instead of approaching it from below. In section 1.2 he addresses some ''infrequently asked questions'' related to the importance given to the lexicon in current linguistics. The proposed answer assumes that syntax manipulates atomic objects, made available by a structureless pre-syntactic lexicon. Then (section 1.3) he invites syntacticians to consider biolinguistic evidence for the lack of language-internal modules and what one may call ''Poeppel's challenge:'' the goal of finding a class of very basic primitive operations that plausibly underlie linguis
 tic computations for consideration as candidates for possible neural circuits. To do so, linguists should recognize lexicocentrism as a threat to the biolinguistic enterprise, and get rid of isolationist (i.e., modular) tendencies.

Chapter 2, entitled ‘Syntactic order for free: Merge ’, starts out with the idea of Bare Merge, understood as unrestricted set-formation. Section 2.2 explains that this follows from the fact that the pre-syntactic (‘narrow’) lexicon is made of ‘lexical precursor cells’ containing just one edge feature each, understood as in Chomsky (2008). Late insertion would couple it with indices pointing to the externalization and to the interpretative systems. This approach would be yet simpler than the notion of root in Distributed Morphology, or the syntactic correspondent of Pietroski’s (2007, a.o.) lexicalized concepts. Developing Richards’s (2010) ideas on phases as a way to ensure anti-locality (two elements of the same syntactic category cannot be transferred at the same time), in section 2.3 the author proposes phase-based transfer as the crucial symmetry-breaking process through which the head-phrase distinction comes out. The following step of his reasoning assumes that
  there must be only two labels, considering phase complements: one for singleton sets (the complement of first merge) and another one for two-membered sets. He then identifies the abstract notions of Noun and Preposition as the closest ones to these respective categories, being able to derive all others. Boeckx suggests, for instance, that D is the consequence of moving N and reprojecting an NP/nP layer, a strategy to cope with selectional problems. In other words, syntactic categories should be derived from primitive concepts. Section 2.4 develops other asymmetries emerging from the syntactic derivation, such as adjunction and chains. By observing that adjuncts inserted in phase edges are islands for movement, Boeckx suggests that they must end up in a different Spell-Out domain because otherwise they would give rise to a crash, once they contain two adjacent phase heads, as in (i):

(i) {Phase head, {Phase head, {...Non-Phase head}}, {Non-Phase head}}

The fact that most specifiers are nominal in nature whereas most (perhaps all) adjuncts are adpositional/clausal in character is captured in terms of the singleton set versus two-membered set (followed by a singleton set) opposition, as in:

(ii) a. {Phase head, {Non-Phase head}} (specifier)
	b. {Phase head, {Non-Phase head, Phase head, {Non-Phase head}}} (adjunct)

This distinction implies that: (i) specifiers are more integrated with the clause than adjuncts; (ii) nominal complements are in fact adjuncts. The second point is illustrated by claiming that 'of Mary' in a phrase marker such as 'a friend of Mary' is an adjunct that does not undergo immediate Spell-Out. He consequently explores the difference between A chains and A-bar chains around the notion of feature valuation. This operation is here understood as the consequence of the  insertion of an uninterpretable feature (taken as an empty set ‘{}F’) together with an interpretable feature in the course of the derivation. If this composed element ({Phase head, {}}) remerges downstairs, inside the phase complement, it gets its value from the closest c-commanding intransitive phase (one whose complement is a singleton set) and generates an A chain, i.e. one occurring in a valuation configuration. Subsequently, section 2.5 addresses two broad remarks about the model, the first one reinforc
 ing Merge as an optional operation and allowing constraints on movement to be not purely driven by narrow syntax. The second issue is the difference between the Chomskyan (‘lexicalist’) concept of phases and his own. For the author, under free Merge the concept of phases cannot be used to explain successive cyclic movement and consequently to address island/subjacency effects. Finally, section 2.6 summarizes the chapter: the syntax is presented as a grammatical pre-pattern, associated to the family of systems that self-organize themselves (thus its dubbing as ‘Santa Fe style,’ in homage to the city where this kind of theorizing was developed). For Boeckx, a natural consequence of this model is the recognition that many properties once thought to be part of narrow syntax emerge as interface (epi)phenomena.

Chapter 3 (‘Trusting in the external systems: descent with modification’) describes some general properties of the external systems, so as to offer the reader an idea about how to bridge the gap between the syntactic model described and richer grammatical representations. To do so, Boeckx draws on existent work, by adapting previous ideas with respect to their lexicalist traits. Boeckx assumes that the portion of syntactic structure transferred at each phase is the same for SEM (‘the mapping from syntax to ‘meaning’’) and PHON (‘the mapping from syntax to externalization’). Besides, there must be a direct point of contact between these two domains. Section 3.2 examines SEM, where Boeckx argues that biolinguists must seek a connection between the Faculty of Language and the prelinguistic intentionality. He proposes, first, that the edge feature has the capacity of suspending selectional restrictions and thus of detaching concepts from their raw sensory and perceptual t
 ies. Second, thanks to phases, humans would move from a Davidsonian to a neo-Davidsonian representation of events, enabling the representation of the functional sequences of cartographers as ‘fractal’ representations of elementary argument structures (cf. Hinzen’s 2006 work). 

In section 3.3, the properties of PHON are discussed, by first pointing out its reliance on the environment, going hand in hand with grammaticalization, i.e. the emergence of paradigms and elaborate structures. Boeckx then selects Distributed Morphology (DM) and Nanosyntax, but assuming that DM’s List A (the set of abstract morphosyntactic feature bundles) is at the Phonetic Form, alongside List B, and that the functional sequence is not given, Bye and Svenonius’s (2012) notion of lexical insertion in two stages, composed by L-match and Insert, would take care of each one of these lists. Conformingly, Idsardi and Raimy’s (2013) proposal of linearization is adopted, instead of the most common Kaynian model. Hale and Keyser’s (1993) concepts of l-syntax and s-syntax are also adopted, the former explaining the representational post-syntax argued for in this model. Finally, an interim summary is given.

Chapter 4, (‘Elaborate grammatical structures: how (and where) to deal with variation’) develops observations on the consequences of the system for cross-linguistic variation. Here the author adopts the ‘Strong Uniformity Thesis’ proposed in a previous work (Boeckx 2011), according to which principles of narrow syntax are not subject to parametrization. Section 4.1 includes a criticism of the Principles-and-Parameters approach, first by observing the richness of parametric hierarchies, staying in contrast with minimalist desiderata. For Boeckx, the dissociation between Principles and Parameters theoretically derives from Chomsky’s (2001) Uniformity Hypothesis and is empirically necessary in view of the growing evidence that parameters are artificial concepts to encode accidents. Second, he argues that parameters are completely encoded in PF, and criticizes the reliance of followers of the “Chomsky-Borer” conjecture on the lexicon. Section 4.2 is an attempt to propose an
  alternative view of variation, based on an algorithm to learn a language’s morphophonological mapping, following the model put forward in Boeckx and Leivada (2014), which considers a list of biases and factors that aid acquisition, drawing from a number of previous works. Finally, Boeckx presents some conclusions, where he contends that linguistics shall accommodate insights of alternative visions without existential dilemmas.

The brief Chapter 5, entitled ‘Interdisciplinary prospects’ closes off the discussion by reaffirming that linguistics should develop in the same way as biology, by moving beyond atomistic explanations (lexicocentrism/genocentrism).

In Appendix 1 (‘Déjà vu all over again?’) Boeckx gives an account of the current thinking in Generative Grammar, which according to him bears some resemblance to older rule-based models, and to Generative Semantics. In this context, Boeckx recognizes the intellectual relation of his ideas and the ones proposed in Otero (1983), where the grammatical system is divided into syntagmatic and paradigmatic operations; in his proposal, narrow syntax would correspond to the first component, but in a more radical way, because even syntactic categories would be left to the post-syntactic component, which includes the lexicon. 

Appendix 2 (‘Switching metaphors: from clocks to sand piles’) discusses how a biolinguistic approach to grammar affects how the levels of representation are conceptualized, and especially the syntax. The research program of Complex Systems received the image of the sand pile in Bak et al. (1988) in order to show how complex pattern formation can arise irrespective of the fine-grained details of the system. This proposal is opposite to the image of the complex and rigid internal structure of a clock defended for language in Baker (1999).

Appendix 3 (‘More on the loss of syntactic variation’) makes a case against Snyder’s constructive parameters, which would extend the idea of the compounding parameter, according to which languages permit complex predicate constructions like verb particles, resultatives, and double objects if and only if they can productively form N-N compounds. Constructive parameters are understood as those allowing a semantic composition rule in its positive setting, which would be otherwise uninterpretable. Boeckx suggests that many of these purported ‘deep parameters’ exploit a lack of restrictiveness in syntactic theory that would be better explained as realizational options confined to the margins of narrow syntax. Finally, he criticizes the distinction made in Roberts (2011) between PF parameters and non-PF ones based on asymmetry, i.e. on the existence of paradigmatic gaps.

EVALUATION

This book presents a discussion that is of interest for theoretical linguistics and all scholars joining the new research effort under the label ‘biolinguistics’. It is very well written but presupposes a lot of previous knowledge on current syntactic theories. It presents the general lines of what seems to be a new development of the minimalist program, although with a specific interest in depriving syntax of all kinds of lexical features, thus assuming almost no kinds of a priori concepts that have been attributed to the lexicon. 

The big question the reader is confronted with is whether this research agenda is really inescapable from a biolinguistic point of view, and to my comprehension the answer is no. The first and main reason is that the argument has not been thoroughly developed. Notice that the abuse of features in contemporary syntactic theory and the drift from a genocentric approach does not entail that one should completely discard lexical features from the purview of syntactic computations. Second, if the answer to the Granularity Mismatch Problem (pointed out in Poeppel and Embick, 2005) involves a radical simplification of linguistic concepts, taking this information from the lexicon and transferring it to the morphology (or the PF interface in a broader view) will not do better. Third, there is no specific motivation for the relocation of themes that have been treated by the syntax (e.g. word order), to the postsyntactic component. 

The problem is basically how minimal syntax should be.  If biolinguistics should be concerned with one small aspect of our languages, i.e., the functioning of narrow syntax, all the rest being the consequence of external pressures, the auto-proclaimed syntacto-centric status of this model is at least controversial. The reader notices that taking the minimalist stance proposed in the book to its last consequences ends up by emptying syntax from (almost) all its explanatory powers, in practical terms. The offered alternative, the exploration of Complex Systems, must be seen with care; according to Bonini’s paradox, the more variables are taken into account in our system, the more it loses its capacity of forecast or explanation. Second, it seems that there is a contradiction in the book regarding that point: the demise of modules is proclaimed, but a second, representational syntactic level is assumed, where features are manipulated to create bundles. 

More specific assumptions about the way narrow syntax is modeled are also in need of further explanation and motivation: for instance, the validity of using reprojection in the analysis of relative clauses and the identity between complementation and relativization. Many of these ideas seem to comply with the kind of explanations aimed at in this monograph, but may sound opportunistic, in the sense that they fit the theory, but are not clearly the best empirical choice. Going even further — and in spite of Boeckx’s warning that his ideas do not exactly subscribe to the minimalist program —, one might still be surprised that he assumes a group of minimalist principles while leaving many others out without notice (e.g. the inclusiveness condition); besides, one should be aware that some of the notions kept are used under very specific interpretations (e.g. ‘phase’ as a labeling mechanism). 
  
Despite these many gaps, I deem this book worth reading, as a source of important issues to be kept in our concerns as linguists. First, formal linguists must address many criticisms presented against the abuse of features and the lack of clarity and of explanatory adequacy in parameter theory. We must recognize that the theory of features and categories is the less developed area in modern linguistic theory, where typological and comparative work may reveal the plasticity of the concepts encoded (cf. Wiltschko, 2014, a.o.). Second, generative linguists must foster closer interdisciplinary cooperation around biolinguistic issues, defining its limits and methodology. In this sense, the connection between syntax and the interfaces with other cognitive modules must be taken into account (see for instance work by Di Sciullo 2011, a.o.). Third, linguists in general must be open to the development of strong links between different schools, not only in terms of research questions, so as to 
 foster knowledge, but also in terms of specific languages or about the faculty of language; one aspect can help the other.

REFERENCES

Bak, P.; Tang, C., and Wiesenfeld, K. (1988). Self-organized criticality. Physical review A 38:1, p. 364-374.

Baker, M. (1999). On the interplay of the universal and the particular: Case study of Edo. In: S.J. Billings, J.P. Boyle and A.M. Griffith (Eds.) Proceedings of CLS 35: The Panels (p. 265-289). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Boeckx, C. (2011). The emergence of the language faculty, from a biolinguistic point of view. In: M. Tallerman and K. Gibson (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (p. 492-201). Oxford: OUP.

Boeckx, C. and Leivada, E. (2013). Entangled parametric hierarchies: Problems for an overspecified universal grammar. PLoS One 8:9, e72357.

Bye, P. and Svenonius, P. (2012). Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In: J. Trommer (Ed.) The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence (p. 427-495). Oxford: OUP.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language (p. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In: R. Freidin, C. Otero and M.L. Zubizarreta (Eds.) Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (p. 133-166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Di Sciullo, A.M. (2011). A Biolinguistic Approach to Variation. In: A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx  (Eds.) The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (p. 305-326). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In: K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (Eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (p. 53-110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hinzen, W. (2006). Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: OUP.

Idsardi, W. and Raimy, E. (2013). Three types of Linearization and the temporal aspects of speech. In: T. Biberauer and I. Roberts (Eds.) Principles of linarization (p. 31-56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Otero, C. (1983). Towards a model of paradigmatic grammar. Quaderni di Semantica, 4, p. 134-144.

Pietroski, P.M. (2007). Systematicity via monadicity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7, p. 343-374.
 
Poeppel, D. and Embick, D. (2005). Defining the Relation Between Linguistics and Neuroscience. In: A. Cutler. Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones (p. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richards, N. (2010). Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Roberts, I. (2011). Parametric hierarchies: Some observations. Presented at the workshop on linguistic variation and the minimalist program, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.

Wiltschko, M. (2014). The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Aroldo Andrade is postdoctoral fellow at the State University of Campinas. His work primarily focuses the use of noncanonical syntactic constructions and the position of clitic pronouns in Romance languages. His research interests include syntax, semantics/pragmatics, historical linguistics and biolinguistic issues.




----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3589	
----------------------------------------------------------







More information about the LINGUIST mailing list