Skip to main content

Principles, Parameters and Representations

  • Chapter
Computational Psycholinguistics

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 20))

  • 92 Accesses

Abstract

We remarked in chapter I that any interesting proposal concerning human linguistic performance must make reference to the structure of language, i.e. the representational form and informational content which determines the interpretation of utterances. As Chomsky (1980) has pointed out, without reference to such structure, theories of performance will be inherently superficial and uninteresting. Furthermore, to the extent that any proposed model of processing claims to be (at least partially) innate, it will crucially depend upon the knowledge of language determined by UG.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. That is, some verbs, such as send s-select for a destination complement, as in Alan sent the book to the publisher but which may be absent as in Alan sent the letter (although arguably there is some understood, if possibly underdetermined, DESTINATION).

    Google Scholar 

  2. There are proposals which advocate the base generation of the subject within the VP (possibly the [Spec,VP] position), followed by movement to [Spec,IP] (see (Manzini 1992, page 86–88) and references cited therein). This has the advantage that no extra mechanism is required for dealing with the assignment of the verb’s external role to a position outside the VP. We will take up discussion of this point in §111.3.4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. This is in fact the name of the Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) principle which is roughly equivalent to the Theta Criterion (Bresnan & Kaplan 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Whether or not extraposition involves adjunction to VP, or IP is a matter of some debate in the literature. See (Rochemont & Culicover 1990) for arguments on this point.

    Google Scholar 

  5. So that we may generalise this formulation of the Case Filter, we assume that NPs in situ form a Chain of unit length (at least at S-Structure), which must similarly be assigned Case exactly once.

    Google Scholar 

  6. These definitions have been adapted from the general proposals of Lasnik & Saito (1992) and those upon which that work is based.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Note, this requires that the government domain be determined by the first (i.e. lowest) X 2 node. In the present system however, we assume m-command to be determined by the ‘collective’ set of X 2 nodes (i.e. the highest node of the phrase).

    Google Scholar 

  8. We assume that himself is the controller of PRO, since remind is an object control verb. That is, if we replace the reflexive with, say, Mary, then it is clearly the object which controls the embedded subject.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For further discussion, the reader is also referred to (Chomsky 1986b) and (Rizzi 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  10. This idea is not particularly new. See (Kolb & Thiersch 1990), (Muysken 1983), and (Cann 1988) for similar approaches.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A full exposition of these principles is not required for this discussion. Indeed a number of existing proposals could be adopted. In particular, the present system draws on the work of (Chomsky 1986a), (Chomsky 1986b), and (Lasnik & Saito 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. It is possible that the derivational model may have more expressive power than the mono-stratal, Chain-based one. This issue is currently a matter of debate in the field, and is beyond the scope of our discussion. Chomsky has continued to argue in favour of a truly derivational theory (Chomsky 1986a) (Chomsky 1988) while others have argued against (Rizzi 1986) (Koster 1987). The arguments are not only very subtle, but also highly theory-internal, and hence not compelling enough to deter the model proposed here.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crocker, M.W. (1996). Principles, Parameters and Representations. In: Computational Psycholinguistics. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1600-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1600-5_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-3806-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-1600-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics