|
Linguistics Architecture and blocking (2008) In Linguistic Inquiry 39:1 David Embick and Alec Marantz Abstract: We discuss different theoretical approaches to stating blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). All of these approaches share at least one intuition, the idea that sets of syntactic and semantic features create a range of possible "cells" or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Beyond these similarities, there are two primary dimensions along which accounts to blocking differ: (1) the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and (2) whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of a competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to the insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary Items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion. View/Download Paper: (Contact me) Variation and morphosyntactic theory: Competition fractionated (2008) In Language and Linguistics Compass 2/1 David Embick Abstract: The study of the ``dynamic'' aspects of language-- variation and change-- and the development of grammatical theory are often pursued independently of one another. Concentrating on morphosyntax, this paper explores connections between these domains that are centered on the notion of competition. When the relationship between competition for grammaticality and competition for use is articulated, it is clear that grammar competition models of variation and change are connected directly to specific theoretical approaches to synchronic grammar. (This is an overview paper for the historical section of this journal). View/Download Paper: variation.pdf Linearization and Local Dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions (2007) (In Linguistic Analysis) David Embick Abstract: A variety of "movement under adjacency" called Local Dislocation in Embick and Noyer (2001) affixes one element to another under conditions of linear adjacency. This paper explores several aspects of this operation, concentrating on (i) its formal properties, and (ii) the properties of linear relations that restrain possible configurations in which Local Dislocation can occur. Operating on the assumption that the syntax generates hierarchical representations that have linear relations imposed on them in the PF branch of the grammar, the paper shows that many restrictions on Local Dislocation can be shown to follow from linear representations that are required in the "normal" case of linearizing syntactic structures. In addition, it is shown that there are some cases in which phase-based "cyclic spell out" of syntactic structures interacts with Local Dislocation (and other PF processes) as well, adding a further architectural dimension to the discussion of PF processes. View/Download Paper (scan; large): lin.pdf Blocking Effects and Analytic/Synthetic Alternations (2007) (In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:1) David Embick Abstract: A number of interactions in grammar are referred to as showing blocking effects, typically defined as cases in which the existence of one form prevents the existence of a form that is otherwise expected to occur. Patterns of analytic/synthetic alternation, in which two-word and one-word forms alternate with each other, have been taken to be instances of blocking in this sense. An example is found in the formation of English comparatives and superlatives, where, for example, the synthetic form smarter appears to block the analytic form *more smart?. Analytic forms are available in other cases (e.g. more intelligent), such that the interaction between the "one word" and "two word" forms is crucially at issue. This paper examines English comparative and superlative formation, concentrating on the question of how the morphophonology relates to syntax and semantics. A central point is that in the architecture of Distributed Morphology, these cases do not involve word/word or word/phrase competition-based blocking. Rather, blocking effects broadly construed are reduced to the effects of distinct mechanisms: (1) Vocabulary Insertion at a particular terminal node (morpheme), and (2) the operation of combinatory processes. The paper provides a detailed discussion of the latter type, showing that synthetic comparative/superlative forms are created post-syntactically by affixation under adjacency. Throughout the discussion, questions concerning the status of blocking effects in Distributed Morphology, and those found in analytic/synthetic alternations in particular, play a central role View/Download Paper:(Contact me) Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface (2006) (In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces) David Embick and Rolf Noyer Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the syntax/morphology interface from the perspective of Distributed Morphology. This theory advances an architecture in which there is a single generative system: the syntax. In the default case, morphological structure and syntactic structure are the same. Various types of syntax/morphology 'mismatches' are analyzed as cases in which PF requirements force modifications to the syntactic structure, modifications that are sharply constrained to perform minimal readjustments. Case studies from a number of different languages are used to illustrate these general points. View/Download Paper: (Contact me) (in T. Geerts and H. Jacobs eds. Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, John Benjamins (2005)) David Embick and Morris Halle Abstract: The paper addresses the question of whether the 'stem' must be admitted as a privileged object in grammatical theory. Based on a series of case-studies, including a treatment of parts of the Classical Latin conjugation, it is demonstrated that admitting stems is unnecessary and problematic. The analysis is framed in terms of the theory of Distributed Morphology. View/Download Paper: stem.pdf On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English (2004) David Embick (In Linguistic Inquiry, 35:3) Abstract: The paper examines the structure of Resultative participles in English: participles that denote a state resulting from a prior event, such as The cake is flattened or The metal is hammered. The analysis identifies distinct stative participles that derive from the different heights at which Aspectual morphemes attach in a verbalizing structure. The Aspectual head involved in Resultative participles is shown to attach to a vP which is also found in (1) the formation of de-adjectival verbs, and (2) verb phrases with resultative secondary predicates, like John hammered the metal flat. The analysis shows that these distinct constructions have a shared structural subcomponent, and that analyzing them in this uniform fashion accounts for a number of their syntactic, morphological, and interpretive properties. In addition, the paper contributes to the analysis of participle differences in structural terms, a move forced by non-Lexicalist theories of grammar. A comparison of the present analysis with Lexical approaches to the 'adjectival passive' is presented in the conclusion. (Keywords: participles, adjectival passive, resultative, resultative secondary predicate, adjectives, distributed morphology) View/Download Paper: (Contact me) Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Cognitive Neuroscience and the English Past Tense: Comments on the Paper by Ullman et al. (2005) David Embick and Alec Marantz (Commentary article, Brain and Language 93) Abstract: The paper is a commentary on Ullman et al.'s study of the English Past Tense in aphasics. The English Past Tense has received a great deal of attention in recent studies, and, in particular, in the debate between Connectionist and Non-Connectionist models of language in the brain. While Ullman et al. demonstrate once again that Connectionist models of language are inadequate, they also make a number of assumptions about linguistic theory, stemming primarily from work by Pinker (1999), which require attention. Thus in addition to addressing the details of the aphasia study, we devote the primary focus of the paper to the linguistic assumptions that underlie Ullman et al.'s study, and the implications of these assumptions for linguistic theory. View/Download Paper: (Contact me) Mapping Syntax Using Imaging: Prospects and Problems for the Study of Neurolinguistic Computation (2003) David Embick and David Poeppel Abstract: The study of language in the brain is the study of the computations that form the basis for the structure and processing of language. Hemodynamic imaging techniques can make a contribution to this domain of inquiry, but only if paired with an explicit theory of these underlying formal processes. In the domain of syntax, statements like 'syntax is mediated by Broca's area' (Brodmann's areas 44/45) may be roughly correct, but are too coarse both cognitively and cytoarchitectonically to constitute insights into neurolinguistic computation. Numerous studies of syntactic processing report activation in Broca's Area, and the consistency of this result offers prima facie evidence for the value of PET and fMRI in the study of the neural basis of language. In addition, however, many studies implicate Broca's area in non-syntactic and even non-linguistic tasks. Thus a restrictive linguistic interpretation of Broca's area activation is not possible. This problem results from the failure to approach linguistic questions at the correct level of granularity: 'syntax' is not a single, monolithic task, nor is 'Broca's area' a single, monolithic area of the brain. Thus while the specification of a functional anatomy is an important first step in understanding the biological basis of language, further progress requires linking neuroimaging studies with detailed theories of the computations which, at the appropriate level of abstraction, are found both in language and in other cognitive domains. View/Download Paper: mappingsyntax.pdf Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience (2005) David Poeppel and David Embick (In A. Cutler ed. Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, Lawrence Erlbaum) Abstract: In the larger context of the language sciences, the popularity of the study of language and the brain is evident from the large number of studies published in the last 15 or so years that have used PET, fMRI, EEG, MEG, TMS, or NIRS to investigate aspects of brain and language, in linguistic domains ranging from phonetics to discourse processing. The energy devoted to such studies suggests that they are motivated by a viable and successful research program, and implies that substantive progress is being made in understanding the neural basis for language and speech. At the very least, the amount and vigor of such research implies that something significant is being learned. In this article, we present a critique of the dominant research program in this area, and provide a cautionary perspective that challenges the belief that explanatorily significant progress is already being made. Our critique focuses on the question of whether current brain/language research provides an example of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization, or an example of cross-sterilization. In developing our critique, which is in part motivated by the necessity to examine the presuppositions of our own work (e.g. Embick et al. 2000, 2001; Poeppel 1996, Poeppel et al. 2004), we identify fundamental problems that must be addressed if progress is to be made in this area. We conclude with the outline of a research program that constitutes an attempt to overcome these problems, at the core of which lies the notion of computation. View/Download Paper: lingneuro.pdf |