The Notion of Null Hypothesis in Generative Grammar
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper claims that given the exhaustive list of interpretive effects of Merge, as argued in this paper, the formal operation of Merge may be null hypothesis, which leads to new linguistic explanations, crucially supporting non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). Chomsky (2008) states: “Merge can apply freely, yielding expressions interpreted at the interface in many different kinds of ways.” The free Merge theory as claimed by Chomsky (2008) above implies that the Merge operation is free and optional unless the derivation comes to be constrained by some condition like the [+marked] feature, as discussed with respect to non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). The free and optional Merge is “unmarked” unless it is “marked” by being obligatory due to the [+marked] feature as mentioned above. Chomsky (2008) claims that every Merge, especially the unmarked Merge, always induces an interpretive effect. In fact, we may assume that even the marked Merge, which has been often exceptionally claimed to induce no interpretive effect, can be assumed to induce an interpretive effect called the “null interpretive effect,” or simply “null effect.” Hence, we accept Chomsky’s claim literally that every Merge induces an interpretive effect, and develop the theory of grammar crucially based on the general notion of interpretive effect of Merge. The overt exact operation of Merge for each interpretive effect is rarely distinctively defined in contrast to the general (semantic and/or functional) notion of interpretive effects like topic, focus, etc., so that the overt operation of Merge itself can be assumed to be null hypothesis, obviously even without involving the edge feature effects (Chomsky 2008), while the essential distinctive effects of Merge should be the semantic or functional interpretive effect itself (Yang 2014). By way of motivating the null hypothesis theory for Merge as characterized above, I will discuss significant theoretical implications of the null hypothesis of Merge with respect to new linguistic explanations, speculating how far the null hypothesis theory is applicable in our grammar.
Abstract
This paper claims that given the exhaustive list of interpretive effects of Merge, as argued in this paper, the formal operation of Merge may be null hypothesis, which leads to new linguistic explanations, crucially supporting non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). Chomsky (2008) states: “Merge can apply freely, yielding expressions interpreted at the interface in many different kinds of ways.” The free Merge theory as claimed by Chomsky (2008) above implies that the Merge operation is free and optional unless the derivation comes to be constrained by some condition like the [+marked] feature, as discussed with respect to non-determinism (Yang 2013, 2014). The free and optional Merge is “unmarked” unless it is “marked” by being obligatory due to the [+marked] feature as mentioned above. Chomsky (2008) claims that every Merge, especially the unmarked Merge, always induces an interpretive effect. In fact, we may assume that even the marked Merge, which has been often exceptionally claimed to induce no interpretive effect, can be assumed to induce an interpretive effect called the “null interpretive effect,” or simply “null effect.” Hence, we accept Chomsky’s claim literally that every Merge induces an interpretive effect, and develop the theory of grammar crucially based on the general notion of interpretive effect of Merge. The overt exact operation of Merge for each interpretive effect is rarely distinctively defined in contrast to the general (semantic and/or functional) notion of interpretive effects like topic, focus, etc., so that the overt operation of Merge itself can be assumed to be null hypothesis, obviously even without involving the edge feature effects (Chomsky 2008), while the essential distinctive effects of Merge should be the semantic or functional interpretive effect itself (Yang 2014). By way of motivating the null hypothesis theory for Merge as characterized above, I will discuss significant theoretical implications of the null hypothesis of Merge with respect to new linguistic explanations, speculating how far the null hypothesis theory is applicable in our grammar.
참고문헌 (42)
- The syntax of interpretation, "Barbiers, Sjef", Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, ~ (1995)
- Boškovi, Željko, "Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling", Linguistic Inquiry, 35, pp.613~638 (2004)
- Boškovi, Željko, "On the locality and motivation of move and agree: an even more minimal theory", Linguistic Inquiry, 38, pp.589~644 (2007)
- Bruening, Benjamin, "Syntax at the edge: cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaqhoddy", 박사, pp.2001
- Cable, Seth, "Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting", 석사, pp.2007
- Chomsky, Noam, "Lectures on government and binding, Foris Publications", ~ (1981)
- Chomsky, Noam, "The minimalist program" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Ken Hale: A life in language", pp.1~52, MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "On phases", 석사, pp.2005
- Chomsky, Noam, "Three factors in language design", Linguistic Inquiry, 36, pp.1~22 (2005)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory", pp.133~166 (2008), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research", pp.506~569 (1993), Walter de Gruyter
- Fox, Danny, "Economy and semantic interpretation" (2000), MIT Press
- Fox, Danny, "Extraction and scope: A case for overt QR", WCCFL, 18, pp.132~144 (1999)
- Heck, F., "Successive cyclicity, long-distance superiority, and local optimization", WCCFL, 19, pp.218~231 (2000)
- Jackendoff, Ray, "Semantic interpretation in generative grammar" (1972), MIT Press
- Kučerová, Ivona, "The T-extension condition", 석사, pp.2007
- Lasnik, Howard, "Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory" (2003), Routledge
- Lavine, James, "The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic", Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10, pp.112~135 (2002)
- Marantz, Alec, "Case and licensing", 석사, pp.1991
- Miyagawa, Shigeru, "Why Agree? Why Move? Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54" (2010), MIT Press
- Neeleman, A., "The nature of discourse template", 석사, pp.2007
- Nissenbaum, J., "Investigations of covert phrase movement", 박사, pp.2000
- Preminger, Omer, "Toxic syntax: yet another theory of syntactic movement", 석사
- Putnam, Michael, "Scrambling and the survive principle" (2007), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Richards, Norvin, "Movement in language: interactions and architecture" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Richards, Norvin., "Beyond strength and weakness", 석사, pp.2006
- Richards, Norvin, "A distinctness condition on linearization", 석사, pp.2007
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Relativized minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Rooth, Mats, "Association with focus", 박사, pp.1985
- Saito, Mamoru, "Long-distance scrambling in Japanese", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, pp.69~118 (1992)
- Saito, Mamoru, "Order in phrase structure and movement", Linguistic Inquiry, 29, pp.439~474 (1998)
- Thráinsson, Höskuldur, "The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory" (2001)
- Tsai, Dylan, "On subject specificity and theory of syntax and semantic interface", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10, pp.129~168 (2001)
- Wiland, B., "Aspects of order preservation in English and Polish", 박사
- Yang, Dong-Whee, "Focus movements, distinctness condition, and intervention effects", Paper presented at The Third International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics (2005), Harvard University
- Yang, Dong-Whee, "Defective agree, focus effects, and the phasal movement hypothesis", 석사, pp.2006
- 양동휘, "Edge Feature, D-effects, and Movement", 생성문법연구, 19(1), pp.83~132 (2009), 한국생성문법학회
- 양동휘, "On the Notion of Feature Inheritance", 생성문법연구, 21(1), pp.141~154 (2011), 한국생성문법학회
- Yang, Dong-Whee, "The non-determinism and the notion of merge", presented at SICOGG 13 (2011)
- 양동휘, "Non-determinism and the Derivational Null Hypothesis", 생성문법연구, 23(4), pp.709~726 (2013), 한국생성문법학회
- 양동휘, "The Global Nature of the Interpretive Effects of Mer", 생성문법연구, 24(1), pp.63~82 (2014), 한국생성문법학회