Corpus Approach vs. Generative Approach and Movement vs. Grammatical Functions One-Soon Her 何萬順

1. Corpus Approach vs. Generative Approach and Movement vs. Grammatical Functions One-Soon Her 何萬順

2. OUTLINE 1)Contrasting GA and CA 2) Contrasting LFG and TG 3) Conclusion

3. 1) Contrasting GA and CA What is the ultimate goal of a generative syntactic theory?

4. To account for the universal properties and variations in the syntactic phenomena in all languages, in the simplest way.

5. A.2 What is the ultimate goal of a corpus-based syntactic theory?

6. To discover generalizations and variations in the syntactic phenomena from the corpus materials at hand.

7. Let’s see a simple non-linguistic demonstration of CA vs. GA

8. Driving on Planet Earth Research Goal: to come up with a description of the side of the road to drive on, on Planet Earth

9. Corpus Approach “Look and see” Solution (1): Australia left China right Singapore left Taiwan right USA right etc.

10. Evaluating Corpus Solution (1) Not happy Must make generalizations

11. Corpus Approach, Solution (2) Generalization: in some countries, drive on the left; in others, drive on the right. Australia left China right Singapore left Taiwan right USA right etc.

12. How about the generative approach?

13. The generative approach assumes: 1) there are universal principles 2) variation is due to parameters

14. Generative Approach Solution (1): Australia left China right Singapore left Taiwan right USA right etc.

15. Evaluating Solution (1) What’s the predictive power? Does it rule out the following? Country X middle Country Y AM-left/PM-right Country Z Men-left/Women-right

16. Evaluating Solution (1) Each listing is a stipulation, thus no predictive power. Must generalize and make predictions!

17. Generative Approach, Solution (2) Principle: within a country, drive on x side only. Parameter: x = left/right Australia x = left China x = right Singapore x = left Taiwan x = right USA x = right etc.

18. Evaluating Generative Solution (2) Pretty good, but…. 1) each listing still a stipulation 2) a parameter always a disjunction

19. Evaluating Generative Solution (2) Research question: can we get rid of the parameter and the listings? The research is now theory-driven, rather than data-driven, as the data have been accounted for.

20. Evaluating Generative Solution (2) Expanding the scope of data: side of the road + side of the driver

21. Driving onthe Left Right

22. Driving onthe Right Left

23. The driving side is always the opposite of the driver side!!

24. Generative Approach, Solution (3) Principle: on Planet Earth, drive on the left, if the driver seat is on the right; otherwise, drive on the right.

25. Evaluating Generative Solution (3) Wow, no listings and no parameters!! But, wait! There’s still a disjunction.

26. Evaluating Generative Solution (3) Principle: on Planet Earth, if the driver seat is on the right, then drive on the left; otherwise, drive on the right.

27. Evaluating Generative Solution (3) Let’s again expand the scope of data: driver + passenger + center of the road

28. Right

29. Left

30. The driver is alwayscloser to the center of the road!!

31. Generative Approach, Solution Ultimate Principle: when driving on Planet Earth, stay closer to the center of the road in relation to the front seat passenger.

32. Evaluating GG Solution Ultimate Does it allow a functional explanation? Yes, it does! Being closer to the center of the road affords the driver the best range of vision with the least physical strain

33. Evaluating GA Solution Ultimate It’s simple and elegant, but is it complete?

34. Evaluating GG Solution Ultimate Consider 建國高架橋下迴轉道 US Postman’s jeep And, of course, Myanmar!

35. Evaluating GG Solution Ultimate …the two kinds of linguists need each other. Or better, that the two kinds of linguists, wherever possible, should exist in the same body. (Fillmore 1992:35)

36. Evaluating GG Solution Ultimate Lessons from Myanmar and Pirahã.

37. Evaluating GG Solution Ultimate It’s simple and elegant, but how many countries do you really need to observe to derive it?

38. 2) Contrasting LFG and TG • Motivation • Phrase structures • Grammatical features • Theta roles & linking • Summary & examples

39. 1. Motivation

40. Under the Generative Grammar, there are many competing frameworks: TG (incl. GB, MP…) LFG HPSG etc.

41. They share the same goal, but differ in: 1) what is “simple” exactly? 2) the right balance between descriptive adequacy and theoretical elegance Consequence: somewhat different architectures some different primitive notions

42. 2. Phrase Structures a.k.a. c(onstituent)-structures

43. TG Principles: X-bar scheme for DS (spec rule) XP → YP, X’ (comp rule) X’ → ZP, X Parameters: (spec rule) YP > X’orX’ > YP (comp rule) ZP > X orX > ZP

44. Extremist View (Kayne 1994) : Universal X-bar scheme with fixed order: spec > head > complement No PS parameters in DS!

45. TG DS →movements→ SS

46. TG That, I don’t know t. John was kisses t.

47. LFG Single level c-structure Language-specific PSR allowed X-bar scheme as default

48. LFG That, I don’t know. John was kisses. No DS, no movements. WYSIWYG.

49. 3. Grammatical Features e.g., case, number, person, etc.

50. TG Features grow on trees. Maryhaskissed John [3/sg/nom][3/sg/nom] …. …..