31.1277, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax: Hu, Pan (2019)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-1277. Mon Apr 06 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.1277, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax: Hu, Pan (2019)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 21:54:00
From: Sean Stalley [sts1821 at jagmail.southalabama.edu]
Subject: Interfaces in Grammar

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36573417


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-2279.html

EDITOR: Jianhua  Hu
EDITOR: Haihua  Pan
TITLE: Interfaces in Grammar
SERIES TITLE: Language Faculty and Beyond 15
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2019

REVIEWER: Sean T Stalley, University of South Alabama

INTRODUCTION

The publication under review is a recent collection of articles from the John
Benjamins Publishing Company titled “Interfaces in Grammar,” edited by Jianhua
Hu and Haihua Pan. This is part of a series under the title “Language Faculty
and Beyond: Internal and External Variation in Linguistics.” This series is
focused on exploring those linguistic properties that result from the language
faculty, the interfaces, and external cognitive domains. In the introduction,
the editors note that the papers in this volume are the result of a symposium
on grammatical interfaces held in Beijing in 2011. This collection examines
potential universalities and provides a clarifying view of what constitutes
truly universal properties of human language. The papers selected focused
heavily on these internal connections, namely those of the interfaces with the
faculty of language. An additional feature of this volume is that many of the
chapters focus on Chinese, lending a typological and crosslinguistic view into
the complicated nature of the subject. 

SUMMARY

The first contribution by Edward Keenan, titled “Unifying UG and language
variation,” is a short but thorough sketch of the use of mathematically and
logically rigorous argumentation to generalize properties of language from
data of specific languages. Keenan explores so-called linguistic invariants
that can be used to universalize structures which appear different at the
surface level: for example, how different languages anaphor-antecedent
relationships are encoded. Using this as an example, Keenan presents three
miniature grammars based on English, Tobo Batak, and Korean. These
miniaturized grammars are processed with an atheoretical (or at least
theoretically agnostic) grammar formalism so that theorems about the structure
of the languages can be produced and equivocated. Despite distributional
differences in how anaphors and antecedents are conditioned, such as case
marking or verb type, the binding relationship can be defined as a universal
property of anaphor-antecedents. While this chapter’s density may provide a
challenge for readers not well-versed in mathematical and logical systems of
argumentation, it does provide an interesting and thought-provoking argument
about how theories about Universal Grammar can be made and evaluated despite
diverging, heterogeneous surface grammars.   

In contrast to the previous chapter, Henk van Riemsdijk’s “Elements of syntax:
Repulsion and attraction” is a much more informal and exploratory look at
examining the constraining factors that may underlie both syntax and
phonology. This chapter is partly an autobiography of the author’s own
thinking over time that led them to considering the idea that elements of
grammar are, much like other things in nature, structured on the forces of
attraction and repulsion. Inspired by the idea of push and pull chains in
dialectology and the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) in phonology, which
bars consecutive identical sound features, van Riemsdijk reconsiders how
categorial representation is accomplished. He proposes two primary ideas: the
Unlike Feature Constraint (UFC)—the syntactic parallel to the OCP—and the
Categorial Identity Thesis, where specifications of nodes in a representation
must be aligned to N or V. With the former, nominal (N) and verbal (V)
features are constrained in the same way that underlying phonological
representations of consonants (C) and vowels (V) are (e.g. CV is preferred to
CC). The author then speculates on a new formal structure of language, where
various tiers comprised of the categorical and phrasal structure of a
syntactic object are represented that then move to a “Merge tier.” It is a
creative and theoretically compelling proposal. 

In the third contribution to this volume, “Computational and semantic aspects
of resumption,” Alain Rouveret presents an argument that Welsh resumptive
pronouns are not handled at the interfaces, but rather arise from
narrow-syntactic Agree triggered by uninterpretable features on pronouns and
relative complementizers. Rouveret begins by invoking McCloskey’s observation
that resumptive pronouns are “Janus-like,” in that they seemingly fall into
the phenomena of anaphoric and pronominal elements as well as movement.
Non-local Agree allows for long distance resumptive dependencies, with
resumptive pronouns able to satisfy features of a higher complementizer (C)
head despite intervening Cs. Resumptive pronouns establish relations with
intervening Cs phase-by-phase until a match with an uninterpretable variation
(noted: [u-var]) can be found, which is on the highest C head. Rouveret shows
that this empirically checks out by comparing embedded declarative clauses,
which do not operate in this manner (even in cases where they contain a
resumptive pronoun). This is assuming that Agree, unlike Move, is not bound by
the Phase Impenetrability Condition. The internal structure of these pronouns
is what is responsible for these dependencies’ reconstruction, and resumptive
pronouns are shown to run parallel to intrusive pronouns. The former rely on
Agree and are established in narrow syntax, while the latter are defined
semantically, occurring via binding in a post-syntactic Logical Form
application. Rouveret notes that this confirms the idea of semantic blindness,
where despite different derivational histories these two types of pronouns
exhibit similar reconstruction properties. 

In the chapter, “Causality, comitativity, contrastivity, and selfhood: A view
from the left periphery and the vP periphery,” Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai explores
reflexive adverbials in a dichotomous structure that represents inner and
outer self. These different syntactic relationships allow for various
interpretative outcomes when in anaphoric relationships. Inner self expresses
aloneness, privateness, and a type of physical presence, which Tsai proposes
arise from contrastive focus in the Verb Phrase(VP)/Light Verb Phrase(vP)
structure, thus expressing comitativity. Outer self expresses voluntariness,
exclusiveness, spontaneity, and naturalness among other things. This latter
interpretation arises from the outer self exhibiting causality with a
contrastive focus while, bound to the Inflectional Phrase(IP)/Complementizer
Phrase(CP) structure, unlike inner self. Reflexivity concerns the relationship
between two arguments in an anaphoric or coargumental relationship; however,
Tsai argues that these distributions allow for more than simple anaphoric
meaning. The adverb under scrutiny in this chapter is the Mandarin Chinese
word ziji (roughly, “self”). Interestingly, the distribution of ziji relative
to subject arguments parallels that of the wh-word zenme ‘how,’ where
interpretations of “by what means” and “how come” can be licensed by the
structural situation relative to the agent of the sentence. Tsai notes that
this parallel between reflexive adverbials and wh-words gives good evidence of
an expanded topography for adverbials, and for the cartographic approach in
general. 

The next chapter is from Victor Junnan Pan, titled “System repairing strategy
at interface: Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese.” Pan explores the prosodic
factors that disambiguate existential and interrogative wh-words that are
structurally ambiguous. Rather than being strictly post-syntactic
ameliorations, Pan argues that instead the phonological features of lexical
items are encoded with prosodic information. Previous proposals of wh-in-situ
have implicated Logical Form movements or binding procedures with
phonologically-null operators. Additionally, the particle ne was previously
hypothesized to add interrogative force to a question; however, this has been
disputed in favor of viewing this particle as a discourse operator not
involving the modality of a sentence. Pan proposes that wh-words in Mandarin
are underspecified with a [+/-Q(uestion)] feature. In normal contexts the
interrogative reading is the default, but can be easily overridden as in
ambiguous contexts where the value choice is determined by the prosodic form
of a sentence, which is the phonetic realization of a binding process between
the wh-word and an operator. Pan notes that this contests the common T-model
of syntax, with a seeming timing issue of transferring prosodic form to PF
after Spell-Out. However, if prosodic forms are encoded as phonological
features on the lexical items themselves, which have semantic effects, then
there is no issue vis-à-vis the Inclusiveness condition. These prosodic forms,
which conform to only one semantic interpretation, thus allow the opportunity
for repairing an inefficiency of ambiguity at the interfaces. 

In “The V-copy construction in Mandarin: A case temporarily reopened,” Huba
Bartos discusses the Mandarin phenomenon of verb-copy constructions, where two
or more copies of the same verb will appear in a clause without affecting the
semantic interpretation of the sentence. These verbs erally appear within a
particular triggering context where there is a post-verbal object on the first
verb and post-verbal modifier on the second verb. These are complements that
express frequency, duration, result, or other descriptive/resultative
meanings. Bartos notes that these verb copies seem to be “superfluous,” or
without any strict associated semantic effect. However, there are
well-formedness constraints on their construction, leading Bartos to consider
them examples of syntax-external considerations of well-formedness. These
constructions only occur when the object is overtly post-verbal, and are
unavailable for passives, topicalized fronting, etc. The verb-object copy,
unlike the verb-complement copy, behaves like a constituent with the
capability of being fronted. Verb-complements are rigidly fixed to occur only
after verb-objects, and it is only the second copy of a V that can take aspect
(such as the perfective particle -le). The construction also seems optional in
some contexts (with a resultative meaning or with a weak definite object) but
obligatory in others (degree). Bartos outlines previous explanations of
verb-copy constructions from a variety of sources, including coordination
structure analyses and non-Chomskyan, lexical-functional approaches,
attempting to unify these views. Bartos deduces that these constructions
result from a lack of competition between two copies, one of which is in a
V-chain where the highest copy is pronounced while the other is a copy in a
separate phrasal unit. However, this applies only in instances where duration
and frequency are involved. For degree complements, two copies emerge at two
points in a structure: one in the base position and the other before the
object nominal. Resultatives are a trickier case, and Bartos relents to the
potentially “undesirable” option that they are base generated as a verb+object
in the highest point in a predicate phrase. The larger point is that rather
than a unitary explanation, previous analyses can be brought together to show
a variety of factors and underlying structures result in surface look-alikes
which fall under the greater category of verb-copy constructions.

The next contribution is titled “The syntax of either and disjunction,” by
Paul Law. In this chapter, Law explores the scope of disjunction in the use of
either, which can occur at various points in a sentence and in most cases
indicates unambiguously a wide scope de dicto meaning (indicating a variable
or non-specific entity in the world). In some cases, namely when either occurs
immediately before two objects in a disjunctive coordination using or, the
scope can be wide or narrow, and the meaning de re (specifying something in
the world) or de dicto. Either functions as a scope indicator, and like
previous analyses Law argues that it is base-generated with the disjunction,
or as its constituent. Movement of either occurs in overt syntax or undergoes
Logical Form movement to adjoin to the Inflectional Phrase (IP). Law also
observes that either is subject to locality constraints and cannot be
separated from disjunction by negation, complex Noun Phrase (NP) islands, or a
wh-island. Interestingly, either cannot move out of a subordinate finite
clause if disjunction is also present in that clause. This is unlike other
operators (e.g. wh-phrases), and is unexpected according to Law because
finiteness should not influence the movement of non-arguments. Law explores
some options for explaining these sets of facts, pointing to a base-generation
of either in various positions rather than movement. Disjunction is argued to
be syntactically balanced coordination, constrained by a phase-based locality
condition where there cannot be an intervening phase boundary between either
and disjunction. The locality constraints of previous movement analyses are
shown to be subject to conditions of partial deletion of the second disjunct,
by such processes as gapping, parallelism, or extraposition. 

In the chapter “Focus, negation and event quantification in Chinese: How focus
helps shape negation in natural language,” Peppina Po-lun Lee takes a look at
the Mandarin Chinese negators bu and mei, both translating to “not”. These
negators are assumed to be unsystematically focus-sensitive; However, Lee
argues that while bu is indeed a focus-sensitive operator, mei does not depend
on focus in the same way. The interpretation of bu is dependent on the
placement of focus in a sentence, being triggered by direct association with
focus. In contrast, mei does not lexically encode a dependency on the
placement of focus. Instead, the apparent focus sensitivity results from mei
being structurally mapped to background information within the Tense Phrase.
Lee argues that mei is a negative existential quantifier which provides the
event description in the background, and is thus only indirectly affected by
focus. Semantic focus cannot override the existential presupposition of mei as
a negative quantifier, and it is syntactically constrained in that it must be
attached to the verb you ‘have’. Lee shows that bu and mei are not homogenous
negators and in fact have different associations with focus.

The following chapter, “Null object constructions, VP-ellipsis, and sentence
interpretation,” Haihua Pan examines VP-ellipsis and null object constructions
in Mandarin Chinese. While null object constructions in Chinese (generally
employing ye ‘also’) are similar to VP-ellipsis in English sentences, there
are deviations in how elided objects are resolved. The sentence, “John
criticized himself, and Bill did, too” is taken to mean that Bill also
criticized himself. A possible interpretation is that Bill also criticized
John. However, in Chinese this same sentence has a strict reading, where Bill
indeed does criticize John. A number of other empirical observations lend
credence to the idea that rather than being akin to VP-ellipsis structures,
the construction in Chinese is different in that it is only the object that is
elided versus the entire verb phrase. However, Pan disagrees with this strong
claim, and instead proposes that these constructions can be said to be
ambiguous. That is, they can either be analyzed as VP-ellipsis or null object
constructions. Sentences that contain modal verbs, which block VP-ellipsis
analysis, were previously argued to be in favor of the null object argument.
Pan argues that not all of these types of sentences can be analyzed as such.
In some cases, it is the particular properties of pronouns and reflexives in
Chinese that trigger null object constructions, separate from VP-elided
structures. Importantly, it is discourse factors which play a role in the
grammaticality of English and Chinese use of VP-ellipsis rather than whether
the VP structures are parallel or non-parallel.  

The next chapter by Thomas Hun-tak Lee and Zhuang Wu, titled “The acquisition
of nominal structure, word order and referentiality in Chinese: Corpus and
experimental findings on the numeral phrase,” uses naturalistic child language
data and experimental data to explore the mapping between nominal structure,
word order, and referentiality from a language acquisition perspective. In
Chinese, there are particular constraints on the reference of different
nominal phrases. Bare nouns in the subject position are definite or generic,
but can receive definite, specific, non-specific, or generic readings when
occurring post-verbally. Demonstrative-classifier nouns have a definite
reference regardless of their syntactic position, while indefinite
classifier-noun nominals are not allowed in subject positions. Similarly,
indefinite numerals are generally disallowed in subject position. This general
constraint against numeral phrase subjects is the so-called Subject
Specificity Constraint, though Lee and Wu argue that numeral phrases denoting
definite reference are not subject to this. Mandarin-speaking child language
data indicates that children are sensitive to this constraint. In addition,
Lee and Wu examine the specificity of outer and inner modifier nominals (OMNs
and IMNs, respectively), which refer to the positioning of a prenominal
modifier. OMNs and IMNs can both be definite, though the former are strictly
non-specific while the latter can be either non-specific or specific. Child
language data (n=2) indicates that while Mandarin-speaking children do produce
IMNs, they do not do so very often. Importantly, OMNs are not used at all. The
usage rates in child-directed speech give a clue as to this disparity: IMNs
appear infrequently while OMNs are largely absent. Lee and Wu bolster this
evidence with experimental data that shows the distinction between IMNs and
OMNs is still difficult for preschool Mandarin-speaking children (n=28). The
experimental procedure focused on the use of IMNs/OMNs with the restrictive
focus marker zhi. The authors conclude that this semantic distinction is
acquired later as compared to a control group of adults (n=24), and that the
interaction between both focus and stress indicate that this is most likely a
development of the interface conditions of child grammar. 

The volume concludes with “Syntax/semantics interface and interpretation of
Chinese NP-NP-V construction by Japanese speakers,” by Li Zeng and Dongfan
Hua. This chapter explores the acquisition of Chinese NP-NP-V constructions by
Japanese-speaking learners of Chinese. These constructions involve
Object-Subject-Verb (OSV) and Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) structures which
follow the NP-NP-V pattern. Unlike Chinese, the canonical SOV order in
Japanese is relatively unambiguous as there are morphological markers that
give an indication of the grammatical role of particular NPs (e.g. nominative
case markers). The acquisition of this aspect of grammar by L2 learners relies
on the intersection of grammatical position and semantics. Zeng and Hua first
explain that there are two overall approaches to the acquisition of interface
conditions: the first hypothesizes that the syntax-semantic interface will be
difficult to acquire, whereas the second view sees the conditions of this
interface as linking to other cognitive domains and are thus actually
unproblematic for the learner. Canonical OSV is argued by the authors to be a
syntactic phenomenon, while the SOV interpretation relies on semantic
compatibility involving animacy and prominence effects. The latter is the
result of the syntax-semantic interface. Zeng and Hua sought to answer the
question of whether Japanese L2 learners of Chinese (n=59) could make the
switch from canonical SOV in their native language to OSV as well as whether
they showed sensitivity to the syntax-semantic conditions of Chinese SOV.
Results indicate a much better acquisition of OSV despite the word order
difference, and that indeed the semantic properties of animacy and
prominence—despite their appearance in Japanese grammar as well—were much more
difficult to acquire. This has implications in the way that we think of how
interfaces come into play in L2 acquisition.

EVALUATION

This volume is tremendously valuable for researchers and students who are
interested in syntax-interface phenomena and work in Chinese linguistics. For
researchers, the range of syntactic, semantic, and interface properties
explored with ample crosslinguistic evidence makes for a compelling series of
theoretically neat packages that undoubtedly will serve to stimulate ideas for
future research. For example, Keenan’s effort towards formalizing a general
way of universalizing properties of languages is no doubt of interest to those
interested in evaluating grammatical theories. This can also be said for the
inclusion of lexical-functional grammar approaches presented by Bartos in
their chapter concerning V-copy constructions.  This also benefits students by
showing that different formalisms can be implemented to explain grammatical
phenomena, and importantly that they are not just simply notational variants
of one another. This is important, as many are not exposed to the
cross-formalism debates, much less how to objectively evaluate and argue for
these differing perspectives. One addition to this book that exemplifies the
concept of scientific introspection and creativity is van Riemsdijk’s
exploration of the correspondences between theoretical principles in different
subfields of linguistics. This kind of self-reflective and speculative
approach to hypothesizing is an important skill to develop in order to put
forward unique and innovative approaches to explain the internal workings of
language. The chapters exploring “zones” of semantic meaning interacting with
syntactic structure are of particular interest. The cartographic project as
developed by Cinque and Rizzi (2008) at first worried some for expanding the
functional requirements of grammar too broadly. However, over time this has
progressed to a more nuanced perspective of the semantic interaction with
syntax, such as that exemplified in Tsai’s chapter concerning inner self and
outer self meaning with reflexive uses of ziji. This is in many ways similar
to the research program advanced by Ramchand (2008) and Ramchand and Svenonius
(2014) that proposes “zones” of meaning within the functional structure. This
has been explored recently with applications to first language acquisition of
Chinese and Spanish by Rispoli (2019). There is a parallel issue explored by
Victor Junnan Pan concerning the pressure from the audio-perceptual interface
in system repair strategies of wh-in-situ. Phase-based and informational
structural properties of syntax also play a key role in the overall story
presented in this volume, which combine with the other chapters in presenting
a fairly complete view of the Minimalist conception of language and the
theoretical mechanisms necessary to provide strong evidence for the Faculty of
Language. Further, Chinese and Welsh are prominently discussed in this work,
as well as English, Irish, German, Japanese, and Arabic, among others. This is
certainly a breath of fresh air for those who are worried about
English-centered research in Generative and Minimalist traditions. Ultimately,
as the editors note in the introduction, this series of papers highlights the
attempts to account for the optimal relation of sound and meaning (Chomsky,
Hauser, & Fitch 2002). The work itself advances our understanding of language,
but the real value is that together they represent a snapshot of a vibrant and
exploratory field that is at the cutting edge of modern theoretical
linguistics. 

REFERENCES

Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, & Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of
language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298.
1569-1579.

Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic
structures. Studies in Linguistics, CISCL Working Papers.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c7a/a468ebe92a6f12e5ce826e84ace234e23a6a.pdf

Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Ramchand, Gillian C. & Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Deriving the functional
hierarchy. Language Sciences 46B. 152-174

Rispoli, Matthew. 2019. The sequential unfolding of first phase syntax:
Tutorial and applications to development. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research 62. 693-705.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sean Stalley is a PhD student in Communication Sciences and Disorders at the
University of South Alabama. His research interests include theoretical syntax
as well as the nature of grammatical impairment in language disorders such as
Specific Language Impairment, particularly concerning how the faculty of
language and external learning mechanisms interact in child language
acquisition.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-1277	
----------------------------------------------------------