16.2278, Review: Semantics/Syntax: Borer (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2278. Thu Jul 28 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2278, Review: Semantics/Syntax: Borer (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 26-Jul-2005
From: Sanjukta Ghosh < san_subh at yahoo.com >
Subject: Structuring Sense, Volume 1: In Name Only 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:36:04
From: Sanjukta Ghosh < san_subh at yahoo.com >
Subject: Structuring Sense, Volume 1: In Name Only 
 

AUTHOR: Borer, Hagit 
TITLE: Structuring Sense, Volume 1 
SUBTITLE: In Name Only 
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press 
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-745.html


Sanjukta Ghosh, Research Scientist, Language Technologies Research Centre, 
International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad

[Structuring Sense, Volume 2: The Normal Course of Events, by Hagit Borer, 
was reviewed in http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2184.html --Eds.]

[Angle brackets have been replaced by square brackets throughout.
Material immediately following a closing square bracket is to
be understood as subscripted; also the notations "max" and "min".
-- Eds.]

This book is an excellent thought-provoking work by a great intellectual 
mind of current linguistic world written from a non-conventional 
perspective challenging generative as well as lexical frameworks. The book 
under review 'In Name Only' is the first of a three volume work 
entitled 'Structuring Sense', by Hagit Borer. Difference between word and 
structure is the subject matter of this series. The question addressed in 
these volumes is how words can mean many things but structures cannot. The 
significant shift proposed in these three volumes explains linguistic 
competence only from the syntactic computation, thus shifting the load 
from the lexicon of a language. Borer selected two most important areas of 
a language, viz. nominal structure and predication in the first two 
volumes (third volume under preparation) to establish the theory proposed. 
The reading of the first volume of the book leads to a desire for the 
reading of the second volume without which the theory proposed seems to be 
incomplete.

The volume I is divided into three parts. The first part sets the stage 
for the whole series by introducing the theoretical mechanism in the first 
two chapters. The second and third part covers the entire area of nominal 
structure covering topics like interpretation of Proper Nouns, mass-count 
distinction, quantifiers and measure phrases, classifiers, singular-plural 
distinction and definite as well as indefinite articles. The difference 
between these two parts lies in the choice of the language taken: while in 
the second part English nominal structure is focused with some relevant 
examples taken from Hebrew, Chinese etc, the third part exclusively 
discusses other than English data for accounting language parameters. 

Borer develops a new model of linguistic analysis (similar to some extent 
to the constructionist and neoconstructionist approach) which she calls 
Exo-skeletal approach in opposition to endo-skeletal where properties of 
the higher structure is projected from the lexicon. This lexicon-driven 
view is opposed in this work where listeme is considered nothing more than 
a sound-meaning pairing giving an encyclopedic knowledge. Syntactic 
properties typically associated with listemes like argument structure and 
category type are properties of the structures in exo-skeletal approach. 
When listemes are selected to form a part of the conceptual array, they 
are not an ordered pair in an unmarked Lexical-Phrasal domain (L-D). 
Alongside the encyclopedia, the grammar has a functional lexicon 
comprising of the grammatical formatives in the forms of features like 
[+pl], [+pt] as well as independent grammatical formatives like [the [+def]]. 
Some grammatical formative merges with L-D and projects some functional 
projection. 

Functional heads have open values which are assigned range by a variety of 
means like f-morphs and abstract head feature (direct range assignment) 
and other operators such as independent morphemes like quantifiers and 
discourse operators (responsible for indirect range assignment). Open 
values are denoted with a subscript which marks its category membership 
like the following [e]d. The system does not predict a one-to-one 
correspondence between these open values and range assigners because it is 
theoretically possible for an operator to bind more than one variable. 
However, the reverse is not possible as double marking of one open value 
by two operators is not allowed as natural languages do not allow a double 
marking. The derivation converges just in case the phonology dispenses a 
representation for the combination of (head + head feature). 

There is a discussion on the inflection vs. derivation account within the 
framework in chapter 2 where Borer separates form and function in the 
domain of inflection. She assumes while more than one head feature can be 
realized on a single L-head, those features are neither ordered nor 
hierarchically organized. Some phonological regularities are associated 
with the realization of the feature combination but at morphological level 
there is no ordering. The argument is supported with data from Hebrew 
where form failing to predict function in the inflection domain and the 
order of inflection marking differs from one instantiation to another. So 
the function of inflection is clearly regular and syntactic but no 
prediction can be made about the forms.

Thus setting the stage of the main work for the remaining two more 
sections of the book, Borer takes up the issue of interpretation of proper 
name and common-name in the third chapter. She came to the conclusion that 
the distinction is neither the property of the lexicon nor can be 
explained by a type-shifter. Rather, this distinction emerges from two 
distinct syntactic structures in which range is assigned differently. 
Proper name interpretation emerges only when a noun is in D, and such a 
noun may move to D either by overt movement as in Italian or by covert 
movement as in English. In case the noun moves to D, it has a head-feature 
called [def-u] which assigns range to [e]d. She also argued that like 
definite articles, proper name behaves like a discourse anaphor taking its 
reference from discourse. On the other hand, in presence of an article in 
both the languages nouns are interpreted as common nouns occurring in NP 
and range-assignment to [e]d is done by the articles. 

Chapter 4 introduces two more functional open values [e]DIV and [e]# for 
accounting mass vs count distinction. Open value [e]DIV is responsible for 
classifying or dividing function and is assigned range by either the 
plural markers and the indefinite article in English. A very interesting 
proposal by the author here is all noun extensions are mass in all 
languages (here differing from Chierchia (1998) who proposed this only for 
classifier languages) and count as well as mass are grammaticality 
constructed notions corresponding to different pieces of syntactic 
structures. Borer argued that plural inflection is actually a classifier 
inflection and there is no language where they coexist in a single 
structure (though both plural and classifier may be present as two 
different strategies in a language). Chierchia's system was unable to 
account for the questions like why classifier languages cannot have 
plurals with classifiers or why the languages with grammatical plural 
cannot have classifiers. Borer answers this question by saying that 
classifiers and plural markers compete for the same functional projection 
or an open value [e]DIV can be assigned range by either a classifier which 
is an independent f-morph or a plural marker which is an abstract head 
feature.

She also argues that mass nouns are not inherently plural but unmarked for 
either mass or count and mass interpretation is defined from a default 
interpretation associated with the absence of a dividing structure. Bare 
plurals cannot be a function of singulars, but rather follow from the role 
of the plural as 'stuff divider'. Apples as a bare plural does not consist 
of singular apples, therefore individual cannot be created by a dividing 
function.
 
She argues further for a #P position dominating the Cl[assifier] Phrase 
which is responsible for the assignment of quantity to stuff or to 
divisions of it. Absence of Cl max gives rise to mass interpretation and 
absence of #P leads to non-quantity interpretation for bare plurals and 
determinerless mass nouns with generic interpretation. Bare plurals and 
mass nouns share the undetermined nature of the quantity involved and 
failure to show telicity of the event. 

In the next chapter Borer tries to account for a null [e]d licensing. She 
assumes that strong quantifiers, unlike weak ones, merge a copy in D°, 
where they assign range over [e]d. Determiners which bind [e]d in this 
way are called D-determiners. Some of these are every, each, all, any, 
both and they do not allow the or this before them as these words also 
merge in the same D position. 

Cardinal and weak quantifiers are ambiguous between a strong 
presuppositional reading with a movement to D and a weak reading with a 
null D. If they have a strong reading they bind [e]d, thus existential 
closure is blocked and the resulting expression behaves like a proper noun 
or a definite description. 

If [e]d is bound with a D-determiner, there is no longer a variable in D 
and depending on the properties of the determiners (like if they are 
quantifiers such as each and every), the resulting expression is 
quantificational.

With examples from English and Hebrew, Borer concludes that any approach 
which tries to reduce the scopal properties of indefinites to a single 
structure is insufficient for analyzing certain specificity markers (the 
example given from Hebrew). The scope of the quantifiers as well as 
definiteness and indefiniteness reading emerge from a specific syntactic 
placement of determiners and the open values which they assign range to. 
So the properties of QP (#P) and of DP are responsible for derivation of 
strong vs. weak reading of quantifiers, cardinals and indefinites. 

Chapter 6 investigates the nature of null #P and the properties of the 
definite article. Particularly the ungrammaticality of the construction 
where both definite and indefinite articles occur like * the a cat is 
discussed in the first section. It is conjectured that both these articles 
compete for a same structural position, which cannot be D° but must be 
either Cl° or #°or both. She concludes that both the and a compete for the 
same #P position resulting ungrammaticality of the aforesaid construction. 
The relation between telicity and definite descriptions is also attributed 
to the fact that in those constructions [e]# is assigned range. This leads 
to the conclusion that determinerless mass nouns and bare plurals are not 
quantity expressions.

Comparing the ungrammaticality of *the a with the grammatical structures 
where definite article the co-occurs with weak quantifiers like few, many 
and cardinals, it is concluded that the and a are only heads of the 
quantifier phrase and they must project to #max. Whereas others can be 
either Fmin of Fmax, occupying either head/specifier position. She also 
explains in this context why 'all the' is an acceptable construction in 
spite of 'all' being a strong quantifier. 'All', according to this author, 
is a modifier of DP and occurs at the Spec of DP which is unique to it. 
All other strong quantifiers compete with the for merging into D slot and 
therefore are not permitted together with it. 

Coming back to proper nouns again, in this chapter Borer proposed that 
they must assign range to both [e]# and [e]DIV because they are neither 
mass nor plural and no other quantifier is allowed with them to assign 
range over them. With the presence of a quantifier, a proper noun becomes 
a common noun. 

In the last section of the chapter discussing Chinese data Borer proposed 
that Classifiers can assign range to both [e]DIV and [e]#. There is an 
interesting proposal to merge cardinal and classifier node coming from 
Simpson (forthcoming) mentioned by the author which she also can 
accommodate in her theory. In that case, the specifier position will be 
taken by the number and the head of the phrase and the range assigner will 
be the classifier. Singular interpretation emerges in this system with the 
classifier not because that is specified for singular but because of the 
structure identifies [e]DIV and [e]# and no other value for [e]# is 
provided. The plural classifiers are inherently quantificational and 
assign range to [e]#. For a strong interpretation of Num-Cl-N 
construction, Num movement to D is proposed and cardinals assign range to 
[e]d . Weak interpretation emerges [e]d when is bound by an existential 
operator. Strong interpretation of bare Classifier and Noun in some 
Chinese dialects suggests that Cl can assign range to [e]d also. 

Part III of the book analyzes extensively Hebrew nominal system 
particularly definite articles, structure of singulars, the distribution 
of cardinals (chapter 7) and the classifiers as well as the measure and 
container phrases (chapter 8) using the same tool. The data presented in 
these two chapters elaborates the interaction between the range 
assignments by various means and the emerging syntactic and semantic 
properties of the nominals.

The last chapter concludes the book by discussing the language variation 
in relation to universal properties of language. It is proposed in this 
system that ultimately all variations are properties of range assigners to 
functional open values and these properties are morpho-phonological 
properties as f-morphs, abstract head feature or potential phrasal 
projections. The direct impact of this proposal is claimed to simplify the 
task of language acquisition. It leads to the point where syntactic 
acquisition becomes the task of matching the properties of phonological 
forms of the grammatical formatives with the set of otherwise unchanged 
grammatical computational operations. In this theory language parameters 
are the properties of the morpho-phonology only. 

In this connection, I am tempted to share certain observations from Bangla 
(popularly known as Bengali), a classifier language of Indo-Aryan family. 
While analyzing the classifier system of Bangla, I found out that they 
essentially do two types of job: one is quantification/counting and 
another is of individuation, a cover term for me for denoting specificity-
definiteness-focusing effect. The classifiers can be graded based on these 
two properties. A default classifier which can be used with categories 
such as N (both common noun and proper noun with certain pragmatic 
effect), Q, Num, Dem, V is /Ta:/ and I proposed in absence of any overt 
determiner in this language the classifier takes some of the jobs of overt 
D in certain construction. This can be translated in Borer's term they can 
assign range not only to [e]DIV and [e]# but also to [e]d.
 
For people like me who work in Syntax-Pragmatics interface, Borer's theory 
looks to be extremely positive. If a grammatical description were to make 
only projection and compositionality the relevant factors determining the 
interpretation of utterances, then one would be forced to leave 
interpretation entirely, without residue, to the social conventions of the 
language. That type of picture would leave no role for the speaker, whose 
freedom to anchor an utterance in its context would become vacuous. On the 
other hand, If the speaker constructs a syntactic template before filling 
it with the lexical items she has the choice to opt for a certain template 
for a specific reason (say specificity or focusing) from two allowed by 
grammar. This work, in this way, does not snatch the speaker's freedom 
away.

The Functional open values of Borer resemble the predicates of the 
predicate logic and the functional elements, which assign range to them, 
are the arguments. The predicate as we know is a constant, therefore, is 
the property of the language universals whereas the parameters are set 
with the argument-like functional elements which are variables. The recent 
research in neurobiology also supports the existence of a distinct 
predicate-argument structure in the human brain and the information 
processing happens in two different ways based on this distinction. 
Borer's work is probably guiding us towards a right path which can explain 
the intra as well as the interlinguistic variations more satisfactorily. 

REFERENCE

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. 'Reference to kinds across languages'. Natural 
Language Semantics 6:339-405. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Currently I am working as a research scientist in Language Technologies 
Research Centre(LTRC) of International Institute of Information 
Technology, Hyderabad, India. In LTRC, my primary responsibility is to 
give linguistic input for English-Bangla as well as English-Hindi Machine 
Translation system. I was awarded Ph.D. degree in 2004 in Syntax-
Pragmatics Interface studies of Bangla by University of Hyderabad. My 
research interests include syntax, pragmatics, philosophy of language and 
cognitive linguistics. I also taught in University of Hyderabad as a guest 
lecturer from July 2002 to December 2004.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2278