Processing Advantages of End-weight

Previous research has established that English end-weight configurations, where sentence components of greater grammatical complexity appear at the ends of sentences, demonstrate processing advantages over alternative word orders. To evaluate these processing advantages, I analyze how a Minimalist Grammar (MG) parser generates syntactic structures for different word orders. The parser\u27s behavior suggests that end-weight configurations require fewer memory resources for parsing than alternative structures. This memory load difference accounts for the end-weight advantage in processing. The results highlight the validity of the MG processing approach as a linking theory connecting syntactic structures to behavioral observations. Additionally, the results have implications on the structure and processing of languages where an ``initial-weight\u27\u27 is preferred

Syntactic diacrisis in a rigid and a free word order language

The paper is concerned with some syntactic consequences of Polish being a synthetic language with a rich system of case inflections and English lacking morphological case (or having a residual form of it). It will be argued that this typologically significant grammatical difference provides an essential premise in a unified explanation for the clustering of a number of syntactic differences between the two languages.The argument is based on a set of functionally motivated constraints on grammatical representations. The constraints are proposed as a part of a theory of “syntactic diacrisis” and are claimed to result from a) the general nature of language as a semiotic system, and b) the specific properties of the human parsing mechanism.The paper consists of three sections. The first contains a brief discussion of the role and place of functional explanations in syntax and introduces the concept of a “parser’s requirement on structure” (PROS).The second section introduces and justifies some basic principles of “syntactic diacrisis”.The third focuses on several syntactic differences between English and Polish and shows how they could all be explained by reference to the interplay of the functional (theory of diacrisis)and grammatical factors.The paper is concerned with some syntactic consequences of Polish being a synthetic language with a rich system of case inflections and English lacking morphological case (or having a residual form of it). It will be argued that this typologically significant grammatical difference provides an essential premise in a unified explanation for the clustering of a number of syntactic differences between the two languages.The argument is based on a set of functionally motivated constraints on grammatical representations. The constraints are proposed as a part of a theory of “syntactic diacrisis” and are claimed to result from a) the general nature of language as a semiotic system, and b) the specific properties of the human parsing mechanism.The paper consists of three sections. The first contains a brief discussion of the role and place of functional explanations in syntax and introduces the concept of a “parser’s requirement on structure” (PROS).The second section introduces and justifies some basic principles of “syntactic diacrisis”.The third focuses on several syntactic differences between English and Polish and shows how they could all be explained by reference to the interplay of the functional (theory of diacrisis)and grammatical factors

AP Adjacency as a Precedence Constraint

Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun precedes both (Giurgea 2009, Adger 2012). This observation may suggest an analysis in terms of X-bar-style ‘structural layering’. However, such an account faces several problems: (i) in languages with PP-AP-N order, scrambling of the AP is permitted, (ii) in languages with AP-N- PP order or PP-N-AP order, there is evidence that the AP can c-command the PP, as well as the other way around, and (iii) in languages with N-AP-PP order, the AP can take scope over the PP, as well as the other way around, arguably as a consequence of a structural ambiguity. We therefore develop an alternative analysis based on a striking parallel between the syntax of attributive APs and that of objects: while OV languages systematically allow adverbs to intervene between object and verb, VO languages tend to require verb-object-adverb order. This aspect of verbal syntax is familiar and can be captured in terms of a well-known linear constraint: Case Adjacency (Stowell 1981; Janke and Neeleman 2012). We propose that this constraint has a nominal counterpart that ensures N-AP adjacency in noun-initial structures. Thus, this instance of NP/VP parallelism has its source in parallel constraints, rather than parallel structural layers

The role of the language production system in shaping grammars.

We argue for an extension of the proposal that grammars are in part shaped by processing systems. Our extension focuses on production, and we use that to explore explanations for certain subject/object asymmetries in extraction structures

The Acquisition of Recursion: How Formalism Articulates the Child’s Path

We distinguish three kinds of recursion: Direct Recursion (which delivers a ‘conjunction’ reading), Indirect Recursion, and Generalized Transformations. The essential argument is that Direct Recursion captures the first stage of each recursive structure. Acquisition evidence will then be provided from both naturalistic data and experimentation that adjectives, possessives, verbal compounds, and sentence complements all point to con-junction as the first stage. Then it will be argued that Indirect Recursion captures the Strong Minimalist Thesis, which allows periodic Transfer and interpretation. Why is recursion delayed and not immediate? It is argued that an interpretation of Generalized Transformations in the spirit of Tree Adjoining Grammar offers a route to explanation. A labeling algorithm combines with Generalized Transformations to provide different labels for recursive structures projection. Recursion is then achieved by substitution of a recursive node for a simple node. One simple case is to substitute a Maximal Projection for a simple non-branching lexical node. A more complex case — essential to acquisition — is to substitute a category for a lexical string. Consequently, a computational ‘psychological reality’ can be attributed to explain why recursion requires an extra step for the addition of each recursive construction on the acquisition path