A Radically Minimalist View on Their Ontology and Justification
It is widely assumed nowadays within Formal Linguistics that a Theory of Grammar should provide explanations for two core properties of natural lan- guages: Recursion: including phrase structure, constituency, and the generative engine; the fact that a symbol can contain itself in some point of the deri- vation. In Humboldt’s terms, “the infinite use of finite media”. Displacement: the fact that elements are interpreted in different places from which they appear phonologically. Within Generative Grammar there is a further assumption regarding the archi- tecture of the (cognitive) system, traceable to Chomsky (1965) and developed under the Minimalist framework (Chomsky, 1995 et. seq.), basically, the “Y- model”, a consisting on a generative component in charge of structural descrip- tions of sentences (usually referred to as “syntax”) and two interpretative com- ponents in charge of reading the computation’s output (a phonological and a se- mantic one, to account for the double character of the linguistic sign): (1) The interaction between these groups of assumptions has been expressed in dif- ferent ways, namely the Projection Principle (Chomsky 1981), the Full Interpre- tation Principle (Chomsky 1995) and the Inclusiveness Condition (Chomsky 1995). Underlying this theoretical apparatus is the claim that the best linguistic theory, which should provide an evaluation procedure for grammars (understood as particular formalizations of the properties of a language L), is the simplest and more parsimonious one (Chomsky 1957). However, the accounts for the aforementioned properties of natural languages did (and do) not always go along those methodological lines, entering in...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.