Linguistic Theory

1
Linguistic Theory

• Lecture 11
• Explanation

2
How do we explain things?

• In lay terms an explanation answers the question
  why
• A Why are you carrying that large heavy
  suitcase?
• B I just bought a Japanese wrist watch
• A Whats that got to do with the suitcase?
• B The watch is Japanese but the batteries are
  Russian.

3

• In science, we also want to answer the question
  why. But things are more difficult.
• The reductionist problem
• If X explains Y, what explains X?
• The only natural end to this would be to map
  everything back to the initial event (the big
  bang).
• But we cant do this not enough evidence
• Even if we could, we wouldnt understand it and
  whats the point of an explanation that you cant
  understand?

4
Explanation in Linguistics

• There are two ways that explanation comes into
  linguistics
• The normal one what explains X?
• A more technical one given two theories how do
  we decide which one is best?

5
Levels of adequacy

• For any set of data, there are an infinite
  possible grammars that capture the data
• So how do we decide which one is the right one?

6
A demonstration of infinite possible grammars

• Suppose a simple language with one word, a
• The sentences of this language contain any number
  of instances of the word
• a
• aa
• aaa
• aaaa
• etc.

7

• S ? aS ? Sa
• This grammar will generate all and only all the
  sentences of this language
• But so will
• S ? a or S ? a etc.S ? aS S ? Sa S ? aS
• Moreover so will
• S ? Sb (obligatory deletion rule)S ?
  a Delete b at the end of aS ? Sa sentence

8

• All these grammars are distinct, but they all
  generate languages which have sentences made up
  of any number of as
• Which one is correct?
• Chomsky (1965) proposed that different grammars
  attain different levels of adequacy
• observational adequacy
• descriptive adequacy
• explanatory adequacy the highest

9

• Observational adequacy
• a grammar which predicts all and only the
  grammatical sentences of a language (e.g. all of
  the grammars we previewed)
• Descriptive adequacy
• Native speakers have intuitions about how
  sentences are structured
• S SS a a Sa a
• A grammar which conforms to these intuitions is
  descriptively adequate

10

• Explanatory adequacy
• A theory which sheds light on the logical problem
  of language acquisition is explanatorily adequate
• two descriptively adequate theories of two
  different languages do not amount to an
  explanatorily adequate theory of language if they
  are very disparate
• if both are possible human grammars, how would a
  child be able to learn any one?
• a theory which contributes to a coherent notion
  of Universal Grammar therefore is one which has
  explanatory adequacy

11
Normal Explanation

• Explanatory adequacy does not in itself guarantee
  explanation
• it is just a method to use to distinguish between
  different grammars and to guide research
• Explanation in linguistics comes through
  restriction
• if grammatical principles are as complex as the
  data, then we have description
• the simpler the grammar, the more explanation
• simple does not necessarily mean easy to
  understand
• it means structurally simpler
• the fewer and more general the principles the
  simpler

12

• Thus, suppose we have a grammar whose principles
  are in a one-to-one relation with linguistic
  phenomena
• Here the grammar is just as complex as the data
  and doesnt help us understand it any better
• But if two or more of these principles can be
  collapsed into a more general one, the grammar is
  simpler than the data

13

• But this is a reductionist argument
• We may be able to achieve more and more
  explanation
• But we can never achieve the ultimate explanation
• Perhaps this is enough
• Perhaps not

14
The Minimalist Programme

• Chomsky has argued (since 1990s) that we can
  achieve a greater degree of explanation
• If the theory we produce is built on only
  absolutely necessary assumptions, then it cannot
  be reduced any further
• What is absolutely necessary?
• the set of assumptions that if they were not
  made, we wouldnt have a theory of language

15

• Suppose language is the mental system that links
  the part of the mind concerned with thinking and
  the part of the mind concerned with articulation
  (bodily movements)

16

• The two interfaces have requirements for language
  in order for it to do its job
• the products of the linguistic system must be
  interpretable in the relevant ways
• Suppose that is all there is
• the linguistic component consists of only the
  things that are required to enable interpretation
  by the conceptual and phonetic components
• if anything else is needed to account for
  linguistic phenomena, this will require extra
  explanation (and we are back to where we started)

17
A Minimalist Demonstration

• Why do things move?
• In GB there were different reasons why things
  move
• to satisfy the Case Filter
• to bind bound morphemes
• semantic reasons
• But if movement is part of the linguistic system
  it must have a reason motivated by the output
  conditions (conceptual and phonetic
  interpretation)

18

• Language shows a number of phenomena which
  involve semantically interpretable features
  coupled with similar features which are not
  interpreted
• e.g. verb agreement
• features are interpretable on the subject
  (person, number, gender)
• features a purely grammatical (uninterpretable)
  on the verb
• Presumably, uninterpretable features are a
  problem at the output what would the conceptual
  and phonetic components do with them?

19

• The minimalist claim is that movement serves the
  purpose of checking off uninterpretable
  features
• uninterpretable features are generated in some
  position (e.g. on the verb)
• the verb moves to be in a certain structural
  relation with the subject (specifier-head) where
  the features of one are checked against those of
  the other

20

• IPDP3.s I I
  VP
• If the features check, they are deleted and
  therefore not present at interpretation
• If the features do not check they remain and
  cause the structure to be uninterpretable

Checking
V3.s
21
Phrase Structure in the Minimalist Programme

• The output systems require a single structure to
  be formed from individual words for
  interpretation
• how can a sentence be interpreted either
  semantically or phonetically (order?) if
  unconnected words are presented
• So it is necessary to have a structure building
  part of the grammar

22

• Structure building proceeds as follows
• take two words
• put them together to form a new object (
  merge)
• choose one to label the new object ( head)

loves
Mary
loves
23

• The structure building process is a series of
  mergers which builds a structure step by step
• Do we need any other principles?
• how do we know which words to merge?
• how do we know which one to select as head?
• No other principle is needed other than that the
  structure that is built must be interpretable
• if we merge two incompatible words, it will not
  be interpretable
• if we choose the wrong head, it will not be
  interpretable
• The system then distinguishes grammatical
  (interpretable) from ungrammatical
  (uninterpretable)