Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

the sisters complying with the Principle of Relevance?

7.

Discuss the ways that the four Gricean maxims can be reinterpreted in

terms of Relevance Theory.

8.

Provide an explanation of (539) in terms of Relevance Theory.

9.

Provide an informal characterisation of the functions of the following

discourse particles:

(a) anyway

(b) apparently

(c) by the way

(d) you see

(e) whatever

Further reading and references

The model of syntax presented in sections 18–22 is a simplified version of a framework, first presented in an extensive way in Chomsky (1995b). This framework has subsequently been developed in a number of highly technical works by Chomsky and his associates, but Radford (2004a) is a readable introduction, using similar terminology to that which appears in this book. Radford (2004b) is a much longer, more comprehensive account of the syntactic properties of English from this same theoretical perspective. Other introductory texts include Adger (2003),

Hornstein, Nunes and Grohmann (2005) and Boeckx (2007), but readers must be

aware that, though introductory in some respects, these books are very demanding and technical in places. Somewhat more traditional introductions are Poole (2002)

and Carnie (2006), but these operate with less modern frameworks. As a consequence, relating them directly to what we cover here is not always straightforward.

As regards some of the more particular issues on which we touch, the DP

analysis of nominals is based on Abney (1987). The null operator analysis of yes–no questions is inspired by Grimshaw (1993) and Roberts (1993). Our discussion of African American Vernacular English is based on research by Labov (1969),

Fasold (1980) and Sells, Rickford and Wasow (1994), and the analysis of Jamaican Creole questions is adapted from Bailey (1966). References to Belfast English questions rely on Henry (1995) and the Head Movement Constraint is taken from Travis (1984). All the textbooks mentioned in the previous paragraph introduce some version of an economy principle. The observation that children produce sentences like Get it ladder is taken from McNeill (1966).

Saeed (2003, chapter 6) is a descriptive introduction to thematic roles, a topic that is usually acknowledged to a greater or lesser extent in the textbooks mentioned earlier. Dowty (1991) is a seminal article on thematic roles but is difficult for a beginner. For the semantics of quantified noun phrases, Saeed (2003, chapter 10) is a useful introduction, and relevant discussion appears in Allwood, Andersson and Dahl (1977). The argument for covert movement in section 23 is based on the classic treatment of LF in May (1985), which is very technical. A summary of this and several other arguments can be found in Hornstein (1995, chapter 2), a work which goes on to develop a view of LF linked to an early version of the framework outlined in sections 18–22. Textbook treatments of LF are Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet (1990, particularly chapter 3) and Larson and Segal (1995).

The Claire data in section 24 are taken from the Appendix to Hill (1983); the Kathryn data are from Bloom (1970); the analysis of English as a null subject 405

406

Further reading and references

language is from Hyams (1986) and the comparison between early English and early Italian is reported in Valian (1990); the truncation analysis of children’s clauses is adapted from Rizzi (1994); the optional infinitive stage is discussed in Wexler (1994) and Hoekstra and Hyams (1998); the underspecification analysis of child grammars is outlined in Schütze (1997). All the works on acquisition cited above are technical: for a recent textbook study of children’s syntactic development, see O’Grady (1997).

For section 25, Harley (2001, chapter 9) and Ingram (2007, chapter 12) provide overviews of sentence-processing research. Townsend and Bever (2001) is a more specialised but readable account of human sentence parsing.

For section 26, papers by Clahsen and Marinis in Ball, Perkins, Mueller and Howard (2008) provide reviews of research on syntactic disorders in aphasia and Specific Language Impairment respectively. The account of agrammatism in this section is largely based on Grodzinsky (1990, chapter 3), an often-quoted piece of work in the field of aphasiology which is, however, somewhat difficult to read.

There are a number of good reviews of pragmatics. These include Levinson

(1983), Blakemore (1992) and Grundy (2000). The major work introducing Relevance Theory is Sperber and Wilson (1995), but a more recent and shorter account is Wilson and Sperber (2004).

Conclusion

As we arrive at the end of the book, it is perhaps appropriate to take stock of what we have achieved with respect to the issues raised in our main introduction.

It will be recalled that there (p. 4) we offered an initial sketch of a grammar as a system containing at least four components: a lexicon, a syntactic component, a component dealing with phonetic form (PF) and a component deriving the

semantic (logical) form of a sentence (LF). The way these various components fit together is illustrated in (441) (p. 345), and we have provided extensive discussion of each of these components in the preceding sections. Thus, the

syntactic component, with its core operations of merger and overt movement

(along with agreement, etc.) and its reliance on a variety of empty categories has been described in detail in sections 18–22; LF and its employment of covert movement has been the topic of section 23; the structure of the lexicon and the nature of lexical entries was our theme throughout much of part II; and PF, as a system linking levels of phonological representation via phonological processes has been illustrated in part I, particularly section 5.

It would be misleading to suggest that we have presented a complete and final picture of the organisation of linguistic knowledge in the course of these discussions, and there are a number of factors which justify modesty in this connection.

Firstly, like any science, linguistics is a vibrant and developing discipline, with new ideas and novel observations continuing to make their impact on a regular basis. Undoubtedly, the future will see some of what we have presented here

replaced by more adequate approaches, but this is inevitable and should be

positively regarded as symptomatic of a continued deepening of understanding, itself a trait which appears to be unique to human beings as they pursue scientific activity. Secondly, as noted in our Introduction, our discussion of the theory of grammar and its impact on language acquisition, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics has been greatly influenced by the ideas of Noam Chomsky. We hope that the preceding pages provide some justification for this emphasis, but we must also acknowledge that there are other approaches to the study of language which may ultimately prove to be more fruitful. However, we also believe that much of what we have presented could be reformulated within different frameworks; to the

extent that this is true, the book will have provided a valuable foundation for students who subsequently wish to pursue alternative approaches. Finally, even within the approach we have adopted, there are many outstanding problems which we have deliberately avoided. To offer just one example, we have remained

reticent on the location of the morphological processes described in sections 10

407

408

linguistics

and 11 within the model in (441). In some cases, such as compounding, it seems most appropriate to see these processes as taking place within the lexicon, thereby giving rise to new lexemes; in others, it seems more plausible to locate the processes in the syntactic component itself or in PF. As we write, it remains the case that there are no comprehensive and compelling views as to whether the grammar should contain a single morphological component; as a consequence