Lexicalist hypothesis

Last updated

The lexicalist hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Noam Chomsky in which he claims that syntactic transformations only can operate on syntactic constituents. [ ambiguous ][ jargon ] [1] It says that the system of grammar that assembles words is separate and different from the system of grammar that assembles phrases out of words. [2]

Contents

There are two versions of the hypothesis: weak and strong. In the weak version the transformations could not operate on the derivational words; in the strong approach, the transformations can operate on neither derivational nor inflectional words. [ jargon ]

The lexicalist hypothesis is a response to generative semanticians who use transformations in the derivation of complex words.

There are objections to the hypothesis such as distributed morphology. [3]

The lexical integrity hypothesis is a subset of the lexicalist hypothesis.

History

In the 1950s, Noam Chomsky introduced generative grammar into the world of linguistics and his theory quickly became widely accepted and popular. He mentioned multiple theories of grammar but he favoured the theory to which he gave a name of transformational generative grammar in particular. Transformational generative grammar states that sentences are formed using the standard generative grammar rules to form what is called a deep structure and from there, rules called transformations are used to change this structure by adding, moving, changing or even deleting material from the present structure. [4]

In 1960, Robert B. Lees brought up a theory that derived nominals are all deverbal and not sentential. [5] In other words, the theory states that nominalizations are not derived from verbs or sentences. Lees' theory prevailed until Noam Chomsky released Remarks on Nominalization in 1970. It was in Remarks on Nominalization, that Chomsky proposed the lexicalist hypothesis. Both Lees' and Chomsky's theories are in support of generative grammar.

Theory

The lexicalist hypothesis can be dissected into the following aspects.

Idiosyncrasy argument

The relationship between derived nominals and the corresponding verb from which it is derived, is idiosyncratic and highly irregular. This means morphological transformations of the verb into its derived nominals have no regulations.

For example, there is no apparent morphology-to-meaning link between the verb profess (meaning 'to claim or declare openly'), and its derived nominals such as professor (meaning ‘university teacher’) or profession (meaning 'career'). In this example, changing verbs to their derived nominals involves the addition of '-or' and '-ion', which do not inherently add a new dimension of meaning to the verb, indicating that these morphological additions are idiosyncratic, and not systematic.

Another example would be the verb ignore (refuse to acknowledge), and its derived nominals ignorance (lack of knowledge) and ignoramus (a stupid person). The morphological transformations made to the verb ignore are largely idiosyncratic, and do not inherently contribute to the meaning. [6]

Internal structure argument

Structures in which derived nominals occur resemble that of usual noun phrases, rather than following the structures of the verb phrase that the original verb sits in.

Using the verb refuse and its derived nominal refusal for instance:

[An asterisk (*) in linguistics denotes an ungrammatical form.]

The derived nominal does not occur in the structure of the corresponding verb in which it is derived from. Instead, it should occur in the structure of a generic noun phrase, which can contain determiners, adjectives, and prepositional phrases:

Frozen structure argument

Derived nominals correspond to base structures, [7] that is, to treat derived nominals as deep structure nouns.

According to Chomsky, [7] (a) and (b) are preferable to (c) and (d).

(a) His looking up of the information.
(b) His defining away of the problem.
(c) *His looking of the information up.
(d) *His defining of the problem away.

With this example, Chomsky demonstrates that particle shift, a process in which the phrase is split up and shifted to another part of the sentence, is not applicable for derived nominal phrases.

Other processes that cannot be applied to derived nominals include: [6]

Originally, these processes could not be applied to base nouns, and therefore, according to the frozen structure argument, they cannot be applied to derived nominals as well.

Criticisms

Many theorists have come up with examples that seem to undermine the strength of lexicalist hypothesis.

Advocates of the lexicalist hypothesis posit certain properties of syntactic words as evidence for a pre-syntactic word-formation module. Michael Barrie (2012) [8] of Sogang University discusses these properties and argues that none of them presents a solid case for positing a word-building module distinct from syntax.

For example, a syntactic analysis of word formation predicts that the components of a syntactically formed word should have the same syntactic properties as when it appears as an independent word, which can be counted as the property of inheritance. In this regard, Ackema & Neeleman (2004) [9] address the derivation of the word driver. If the verb driver is syntactically constructed from the verb drive and the nominalizer -er, the verb should maintain its verbal properties and be able to take an object, resulting in the ungrammatical *driver a truck. Then Ackema & Neeleman (2004) [9] come up with various structures that defend this property. Barrie (2012) [8] examines these structures and concludes that their argument in terms of inheritance does not present a valid argument in support of an independent, pre-syntactic word-forming module.

Bruening (2018) [2] argues that lexicalist hypothesis, mainly the part that concerns lexical integrity hypothesis, which assumes that words are separate units that are inserted into syntactic structures, is fundamentally incorrect. He points out three ways in which he believes that the lexicalist hypothesis is mistaken in its view of grammar.

Error 1: Phrasal Syntax Can Feed Word Formation

According to the lexicalist hypothesis, interaction between the word and phrase systems is unidirectional: the output of the word-formation system provides the input to the phrasal syntax, and not vice versa. [10]

(1)
a. She had that don’t-you-dare! look.
b. She had that I’m-so-proud-of-myself look.

(1) shows that the phrases that constitute the first member of these compounds MUST be put together by the syntax, because they have the form that the syntax requires. As in 1a, they can have the form of a declarative. However, if the first member of the compound violates rules and constraints of the phrasal syntax, the result is ill-formed, as in (2).

(2)
a. *She had that you-don’t-dare! look.     (obligatory inversion with negative imperative)
b. *She had that myself-is-so-proud-of-me look.    (reflexive bad as subject)

If these phrases were not put together by the phrasal syntax but by some other mechanism, that mechanism would have to precisely duplicate the constraints of the phrasal syntax. [2]

Error 2: Phrasal Syntax Has Access To Subword Units

Bruening (2018) [2] also argues that the lexicalist hypothesis is incorrect in its assertion that the phrasal syntax has no access to subword units.

(3)
a. You can pre- or re-mix it.
b. *They produce cranber- and dai-ry products.
(4)
a. bi- and a-sexual
b. birth- and adopted sons
c. *bi- and ma-son paraphernalia (bison paraphernalia and mason paraphernalia)

Bruening analyzes that in (4), for example, that the strings bi- and a-, as well as the string son, can stand alone. However, (4c) does not function because the morphemes bi-, ma- (which sounds identical to a-), and son are not distinct in these terms. This means that ellipsis can't only work with phonological or prosodic strings; it also requires access to morphological structure. [2]

Error 3: Morphology And Syntax Obey The Same Principles

According to the lexicalist hypothesis, as distinct components of grammar, the word-formation system and the phrasal system can be assumed to follow different principles. Bruening looks at some of the claimed distinctions between word formation and phrasal syntax, and concludes that none of those distinctions are real, and therefore morphology and syntax follow the same rules. [2]

Notes

  1. Chomsky (1970)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bruening, Benjamin (2018). "The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous". Language. 94 (1): 1–42. doi:10.1353/lan.2018.0000. ISSN   1535-0665. S2CID   12931166.
  3. Halle & Marantz (1993)
  4. Gläser, Rosemarie (1971). "The Application of Transformational Generative Grammar to the Analysis of Similes and Metaphors in Modern English". Style. 5 (3): 265–283. ISSN   0039-4238. JSTOR   42945113.
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis (July 2010). "Nominalizations: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar Part I: The Nominalization Puzzle: A Probe into the Architecture of Grammar - Part I". Language and Linguistics Compass. 4 (7): 496–511. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00209.x.
  6. 1 2 3 Lewis, W. D.; Karimi, S.; Harley, H.; Farrar, S.O. (2009). Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics: In Honor of D. Terence Langendoen. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN   978-9027255181.
  7. 1 2 Chomsky, Noam (1972). Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN   90-279-7964-2.
  8. 1 2 Barrie Michael Jonathan Mathew (May 2012). "Noun Incorporation and the Lexicalist Hypothesis". Studies in Generative Grammar. 22 (2): 235–261. doi: 10.15860/sigg.22.2.201205.235 . ISSN   1225-6048.
  9. 1 2 Ackema, Peter (2004). Beyond morphology : interface conditions on word formation. Ad Neeleman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-926728-6. OCLC   56655564.
  10. Artemis, Alexiadou; Hagit, Borer, eds. (19 November 2020). Nominalization : 50 years on from Chomsky's remarks. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-886554-4. OCLC   1145919953.

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

A syntactic category is a syntactic unit that theories of syntax assume. Word classes, largely corresponding to traditional parts of speech, are syntactic categories. In phrase structure grammars, the phrasal categories are also syntactic categories. Dependency grammars, however, do not acknowledge phrasal categories.

Phrase structure rules are a type of rewrite rule used to describe a given language's syntax and are closely associated with the early stages of transformational grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1957. They are used to break down a natural language sentence into its constituent parts, also known as syntactic categories, including both lexical categories and phrasal categories. A grammar that uses phrase structure rules is a type of phrase structure grammar. Phrase structure rules as they are commonly employed operate according to the constituency relation, and a grammar that employs phrase structure rules is therefore a constituency grammar; as such, it stands in contrast to dependency grammars, which are based on the dependency relation.

In linguistics, transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of natural languages. It considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language and involves the use of defined operations to produce new sentences from existing ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parse tree</span> Tree in formal language theory

A parse tree or parsing tree or derivation tree or concrete syntax tree is an ordered, rooted tree that represents the syntactic structure of a string according to some context-free grammar. The term parse tree itself is used primarily in computational linguistics; in theoretical syntax, the term syntax tree is more common.

Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

In linguistics, X-bar theory is a model of phrase-structure grammar and a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1970 reformulating the ideas of Zellig Harris (1951), and further developed by Ray Jackendoff, along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Chomsky. It attempts to capture the structure of phrasal categories with a single uniform structure called the X-bar schema, basing itself on the assumption that any phrase in natural language is an XP that is headed by a given syntactic category X. It played a significant role in resolving issues that phrase structure rules had, representative of which is the proliferation of grammatical rules, which is against the thesis of generative grammar.

In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a type of phrase headed by a determiner such as many. Controversially, many approaches, take a phrase like not very many apples to be a DP, headed, in this case, by the determiner many. This is called the DP analysis or the DP hypothesis. Others reject this analysis in favor of the more traditional NP analysis where apples would be the head of the phrase in which the DP not very many is merely a dependent. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups. The DP analysis developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it is the majority view in generative grammar today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generative grammar</span> Theory in linguistics

Generative grammar, or generativism, is a theoretical approach in linguistics that regards grammar as a domain-specific system of rules that generates all and only the grammatical sentences of a given language. In light of poverty of the stimulus arguments, grammar is regarded as being partly innate, the innate portion of the system being referred to as universal grammar. The generative approach has focused on the study of syntax while addressing other aspects of language including semantics, morphology, phonology, and psycholinguistics.

In linguistics, the minimalist program is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside generative grammar since the early 1990s, starting with a 1993 paper by Noam Chomsky.

Syntax is concerned with the way sentences are constructed from smaller parts, such as words and phrases. Two steps can be distinguished in the study of syntax. The first step is to identify different types of units in the stream of speech and writing. In natural languages, such units include sentences, phrases, and words. The second step is to analyze how these units build up larger patterns, and in particular to find general rules that govern the construction of sentences.http://people.dsv.su.se/~vadim/cmnew/chapter2/ch2_21.htm

Principles and parameters is a framework within generative linguistics in which the syntax of a natural language is described in accordance with general principles and specific parameters that for particular languages are either turned on or off. For example, the position of heads in phrases is determined by a parameter. Whether a language is head-initial or head-final is regarded as a parameter which is either on or off for particular languages. Principles and parameters was largely formulated by the linguists Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik. Many linguists have worked within this framework, and for a period of time it was considered the dominant form of mainstream generative linguistics.

In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation is the use of a word that is not a noun as a noun, or as the head of a noun phrase. This change in functional category can occur through morphological transformation, but it does not always. Nominalization can refer, for instance, to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech by adding a derivational affix, but it can also refer to the complex noun that is formed as a result.

In linguistics, the projection principle is a stipulation proposed by Noam Chomsky as part of the phrase structure component of generative-transformational grammar. The projection principle is used in the derivation of phrases under the auspices of the principles and parameters theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biolinguistics</span> Study of the biology and evolution of language

Biolinguistics can be defined as the study of biology and the evolution of language. It is highly interdisciplinary as it is related to various fields such as biology, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, mathematics, and neurolinguistics to explain the formation of language. It seeks to yield a framework by which we can understand the fundamentals of the faculty of language. This field was first introduced by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Arizona. It was first introduced in 1971, at an international meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

The linguistics wars were extended deputes among American theoretical linguists that occurred mostly during the 1960s and 1970s, stemming from a disagreement between Noam Chomsky and several of his associates and students. The debates started in 1967 when linguists Paul Postal, John R. Ross, George Lakoff, and James D. McCawley —self-dubbed the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"—proposed an alternative approach in which the relation between semantics and syntax is viewed differently, which treated deep structures as meaning rather than syntactic objects. While Chomsky and other generative grammarians argued that meaning is driven by an underlying syntax, generative semanticists posited that syntax is shaped by an underlying meaning. This intellectual divergence led to two competing frameworks in generative semantics and interpretive semantics.

Merge is one of the basic operations in the Minimalist Program, a leading approach to generative syntax, when two syntactic objects are combined to form a new syntactic unit. Merge also has the property of recursion in that it may be applied to its own output: the objects combined by Merge are either lexical items or sets that were themselves formed by Merge. This recursive property of Merge has been claimed to be a fundamental characteristic that distinguishes language from other cognitive faculties. As Noam Chomsky (1999) puts it, Merge is "an indispensable operation of a recursive system ... which takes two syntactic objects A and B and forms the new object G={A,B}" (p. 2).

Syntactic movement is the means by which some theories of syntax address discontinuities. Movement was first postulated by structuralist linguists who expressed it in terms of discontinuous constituents or displacement. Some constituents appear to have been displaced from the position in which they receive important features of interpretation. The concept of movement is controversial and is associated with so-called transformational or derivational theories of syntax. Representational theories, in contrast, reject the notion of movement and often instead address discontinuities with other mechanisms including graph reentrancies, feature passing, and type shifters.

The lexical integrity hypothesis (LIH) or lexical integrity principle is a hypothesis in linguistics which states that syntactic transformations do not apply to subparts of words. It functions as a constraint on transformational grammar.

References