1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Minimalism and Beyond
  4. Chapter

What is and what is not problematic about the T-model

image of What is and what is not problematic about the T-model

This paper focuses on two important discrepancies between the T-model of the grammar and performance systems responsible for production and comprehension. It argues that independently from the assumed perspective on the competence-performance distinction, one of them is not problematic and the other is. There is no real contradiction in directionality conflicts, i.e. in the fact that the grammar works strictly bottom-up, while performance systems involve many top-down processes. However, the fact that the computational system takes only lexical items and their features as its input presents a real problem, which manifests itself in the domains of scope and Information Structure. This problem can be solved in the grammar architecture where the C-I interface can be used during the derivation.

References

  1. Bródy, Mihály
    1990 “Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian.”InUCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, John Harris (ed.), 201–225. London: University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 1995 “Focus and checking theory.”InLevels and Structures, Approaches to Hungarian 5, István Kenesei (ed.), 31–43. Szeged: JATE.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Büring, Daniel
    2006 “Focus projection and default prominence.”InThe Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), 321–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110922011.321
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.321 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2000 New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001 “Derivation by phase.”InKen Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 “Beyond explanatory adequacy.”InStructures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008 “On phases.”InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, João
    1998 “Word Order Variation. A Constraint-based Approach.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2004 Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Vincenzi, Marica
    1991 Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. The Minimal Chain Principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3184‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3184-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Epstein, Samuel
    1999 “Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations.”InWorking Minimalism, Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fodor, Janet Dean and Inoue, Atsu
    1995 “The diagnosis and cure of garden path.”Journal of Psycholinguistic Research23: 407–434. doi: 10.1007/BF02143947
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143947 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox, Danny
    1995 “Economy and scope.”Natural Language Semantics3: 283–300. doi: 10.1007/BF01248820
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248820 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frazier, Lyn and Clifton, Charles
    1996 Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Frazier, Lyn and Fodor, Janet Dean
    1978 “The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model.”Cognition6: 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ionin, Tanya
    2001 “Scope in Russian: Quantifier movement and discourse function.” Ms., MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackendoff, Ray S
    1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Laka, Itziar
    1990 “Negation in Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Levelt, Willem J.M
    1993 Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Marr, David
    1982 Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Neeleman, Ad and Titov, Elena
    2009 “Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian.”Linguistic Inquiry40: 514–524. doi: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.514
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.514 [Google Scholar]
  25. Neeleman, Ad and Reinhart, Tanya
    1998 “Scrambling and the PF interface.”InThe Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 309–353. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Neeleman, Ad and van de Koot, Hans
    2008 “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.”Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics11: 137–189. doi: 10.1007/s10828‑008‑9018‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2010 “Theoretical validity and psychological reality of the grammatical code.”InThe Linguistics Enterprise, Martin Everaert , Tom Lentz , Hannah De Mulder , Øystein Nilsen and Arjen Zondervan (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.150.08nee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.150.08nee [Google Scholar]
  28. Ouhalla, Jamal
    1994 “Focus in Standard Arabic.”Linguistics in Potsdam1: 65–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Phillips, Colin
    1996 “Order and structure.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pritchett, Bradley L
    1992 Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Reinhart, Tanya
    1995 Interface Strategies. Uil OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006 Interface Strategies: Reference-set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Richards, Norwin
    1999 “Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction.”MIT Working Papers in Linguistics34: 67–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.”InElements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rochemont, Michael
    1986 Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sigla.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rooth, Mats E
    1985 “Association with Focus.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 1992 “A theory of focus interpretation.”Natural Language Semantics1: 75–116. doi: 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rusakova, Marina
    2009 “Rečevaja realizacija grammatičeskix ėlementov russkogo jazyka” (in Russian, ‘Speech realization of some grammatical features of Russian’). Habilitation dissertation, St. Petersburg State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schneider, David A
    1999 “Parsing and Incrementality.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Schneider, David A. and Phillips, Colin
    2001 “Grammatical search and reanalysis.”Journal of Memory and Language44: 308–336. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2777
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2777 [Google Scholar]
  41. Selkirk, Elisabeth O
    1984 Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1995 “Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing.”InThe Handbook of Phonological Theory, Jane Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Slioussar, Natalia
    2007 “Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian”. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2010 “Russian data call for relational Information Structure notions.”InFormal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Gerhild Zybatow , Philip Dudchuk , Serge Minor and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya (eds), 329–344. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 Grammar and Information Structure: A Novel View Based on Russian Data. Ms., Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS and St. Petersburg State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Szendrői, Kriszta
    2005 “Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian).”InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 2, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 272–337. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2001 “Focus and the Syntax–phonology Interface.” Doctoral dissertation, University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria
    1995 “Focusing in modern Greek.”InDiscourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tuller, Laurice
    1992 “The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory10: 303–334. doi: 10.1007/BF00133815
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133815 [Google Scholar]
  50. Uriagereka, Juan
    2011 Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593521.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593521.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Vilkuna, Maria
    1995 “Discourse configurationality in Finnish.”InDiscourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    2009 “Prospects for top-down derivation.”Catalan Journal of Linguistics8: 161–187.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Bródy, Mihály
    1990 “Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian.”InUCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, John Harris (ed.), 201–225. London: University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 1995 “Focus and checking theory.”InLevels and Structures, Approaches to Hungarian 5, István Kenesei (ed.), 31–43. Szeged: JATE.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Büring, Daniel
    2006 “Focus projection and default prominence.”InThe Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), 321–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110922011.321
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.321 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2000 New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001 “Derivation by phase.”InKen Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 “Beyond explanatory adequacy.”InStructures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008 “On phases.”InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, João
    1998 “Word Order Variation. A Constraint-based Approach.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2004 Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Vincenzi, Marica
    1991 Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. The Minimal Chain Principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3184‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3184-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Epstein, Samuel
    1999 “Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations.”InWorking Minimalism, Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fodor, Janet Dean and Inoue, Atsu
    1995 “The diagnosis and cure of garden path.”Journal of Psycholinguistic Research23: 407–434. doi: 10.1007/BF02143947
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143947 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox, Danny
    1995 “Economy and scope.”Natural Language Semantics3: 283–300. doi: 10.1007/BF01248820
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248820 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frazier, Lyn and Clifton, Charles
    1996 Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Frazier, Lyn and Fodor, Janet Dean
    1978 “The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model.”Cognition6: 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ionin, Tanya
    2001 “Scope in Russian: Quantifier movement and discourse function.” Ms., MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackendoff, Ray S
    1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Laka, Itziar
    1990 “Negation in Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Levelt, Willem J.M
    1993 Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Marr, David
    1982 Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Neeleman, Ad and Titov, Elena
    2009 “Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian.”Linguistic Inquiry40: 514–524. doi: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.514
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.514 [Google Scholar]
  25. Neeleman, Ad and Reinhart, Tanya
    1998 “Scrambling and the PF interface.”InThe Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 309–353. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Neeleman, Ad and van de Koot, Hans
    2008 “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.”Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics11: 137–189. doi: 10.1007/s10828‑008‑9018‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2010 “Theoretical validity and psychological reality of the grammatical code.”InThe Linguistics Enterprise, Martin Everaert , Tom Lentz , Hannah De Mulder , Øystein Nilsen and Arjen Zondervan (eds), 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.150.08nee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.150.08nee [Google Scholar]
  28. Ouhalla, Jamal
    1994 “Focus in Standard Arabic.”Linguistics in Potsdam1: 65–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Phillips, Colin
    1996 “Order and structure.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pritchett, Bradley L
    1992 Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Reinhart, Tanya
    1995 Interface Strategies. Uil OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006 Interface Strategies: Reference-set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Richards, Norwin
    1999 “Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction.”MIT Working Papers in Linguistics34: 67–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.”InElements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rochemont, Michael
    1986 Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sigla.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rooth, Mats E
    1985 “Association with Focus.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 1992 “A theory of focus interpretation.”Natural Language Semantics1: 75–116. doi: 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rusakova, Marina
    2009 “Rečevaja realizacija grammatičeskix ėlementov russkogo jazyka” (in Russian, ‘Speech realization of some grammatical features of Russian’). Habilitation dissertation, St. Petersburg State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schneider, David A
    1999 “Parsing and Incrementality.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Schneider, David A. and Phillips, Colin
    2001 “Grammatical search and reanalysis.”Journal of Memory and Language44: 308–336. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2777
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2777 [Google Scholar]
  41. Selkirk, Elisabeth O
    1984 Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1995 “Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing.”InThe Handbook of Phonological Theory, Jane Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Slioussar, Natalia
    2007 “Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian”. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2010 “Russian data call for relational Information Structure notions.”InFormal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Gerhild Zybatow , Philip Dudchuk , Serge Minor and Ekaterina Pshehotskaya (eds), 329–344. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 Grammar and Information Structure: A Novel View Based on Russian Data. Ms., Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS and St. Petersburg State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Szendrői, Kriszta
    2005 “Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian).”InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 2, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 272–337. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2001 “Focus and the Syntax–phonology Interface.” Doctoral dissertation, University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria
    1995 “Focusing in modern Greek.”InDiscourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tuller, Laurice
    1992 “The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory10: 303–334. doi: 10.1007/BF00133815
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133815 [Google Scholar]
  50. Uriagereka, Juan
    2011 Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593521.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593521.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Vilkuna, Maria
    1995 “Discourse configurationality in Finnish.”InDiscourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    2009 “Prospects for top-down derivation.”Catalan Journal of Linguistics8: 161–187.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.14sli
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.14sli
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270061
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error