1. MENTAL GRAMMAR Language and mind

2. First half of 20 th cent. – What the main goal of linguistics should be? Behaviorism – Bloomfield: goal of linguistics is both description of the language and the psychological product-the learning; Others: simply focused on descriptions of language 1960s – Chomsky criticized Psychological linguistics: linguistics is a branch of cognitive psychology (goal: description of knowledge that people have about language) Language is a window into the human mind Competence = knowledge of grammar: Linguistics describes competence Psycholinguistics has 2 major goals: 1. to specify how people use competence to produce and understand sentences (performance processes: Theory of performance should explain sentence production and understanding) 2. to specify how people acquire competence (grammatical knowledge) How do speakers produce and understand sentences? What role does the mental grammar have in the communicative process?

3. 1957 – Syntactic Structures System of rules with which speakers produce and understand infinite number of sentences 1965– Aspects of the Theory of Syntax - Standard Theory, 1970s – Extended Standard Theory grammar,1980s – Government/ Binding grammar Syntax of the grammar is primary, meaning (sound) is secondary Meaning Syntax Sound --- >>> ‘ Colourless green ideas sleep furiously’ Standard Theory consists of syntactic, semantic and phonological set of rules Linguistic description for every sentence on 4 levels (sound, meaning, Deep and Surface structure) Chomsky’s grammatical conceptions

4. Syntactic component of grammar consists of two types of rules: Phrase structure rules (Base rules) – (provide Deep structure) Transformational rules – operating on Deep structure (provide Surface structure) Phonological/semantic component consists of phonological/semantic rules – operate on surface structure PS rules provide the basic constituent structure of a sentence e.g.The boy bought candy at the store. S =NP (the boy)+ VP (bought candy at the store) NP = D+N (the + boy) VP = V + NP + PP (bought + candy + at the store) NP - complex e.g. The girl who dropped the spoon laughed. (S->NP+VP, NP-> N+S) VP – must be specified John ran (V), John ate the hamburger (V+NP), John went to school (V+PP), John was happy (V+Adj), John believes that the world is round (V+S) Phrase structure rules + Lexicon can generate infinite number of Deep Structures

5. Surface structure is the outcome of the transformational rules operating on the deep structure (2) Open the door. S = VP (V+ NP) NP = D + N (the + door) Deep Structure (NP+VP = (you) open the door) Transformation rules! (3) John bought a coat at the store and so did Mary. S1+ CONJ+S2 Phonological rules and Phonetic Interpretation Interpretation of the surface structure into a sequence of sound symbols e.g. Mares eat oats. /merz/ /it/ /ots/ /merziydouts/ Phonological rule: the /i/ gets a ‘y’ glide, /o/ gets a ‘w’ glide, the /t/ of ‘eat’ changes to /d/ (between two vowels) /mer’ziy’dow’ts/ Pitch plays a role in the intonation pattern too.

6. Semantic rules interpret surface structure into meaning elements and logical relations e.g. 1 The shoe hurts (NP (D+N)+ VP (V)) -the shoe is causing pain to someone (implied cause-effect relationship): -2 semantic propositions Proposition 1: the shoe is in some predicate condition (unspecified) Proposition 2: Someone (unspecified) is in pain. A simple proposition is composed of a predicate and one or more arguments! e.g. 2 The boy ran (1 predicate ‘run’ and one argument ‘boy’) e.g. 3 The girl hit the ball (1 predicate ‘hit’ and 2 arguments ‘girl’ and ‘ball’) Chomsky: the semantic rules take a surface structure as input to provide semantic interpretation Semantic rules and semantic interpretation

7. Lectures on Government and Binding, 1981 The relationship of syntax, meaning and sound remains the same Syntax is generative (X-bar syntax), + Syntax integrates the Lexicon Projection principle-projects the characteristics of lexical entries onto the syntax, connects D- to S-structure, connects the Lexicon to Logical form (LF) by specifying the context in which a particular lexical item can occur. The functional relationship between parts of a sentence is specified through theta roles e.g. The boy gave the teacher an apple. (3 theta roles) GB theory attempted to remedy the deficiencies of the Standard theory by specifying parameters and restricting movement The Government-Binding (GB) theory of grammar

8. (1) Disagreement with the organisation of his grammar: syntax has the primary role (2) Disagreement with the adequacy of his structural characterization of the basic syntactic relations and constituents (S, DO, IO, VP) 1 Generative Semantics Grammar, Semantic Case Grammar, Cognitive grammar 2 Relational Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar 1970s – Generative Semanticists: meaning (semantics) is the basis for grammatical theorizing Chomsky prevailed: evolving grammatical theory (incorporated Katz’ semantic ideas in his Standard theory, Fillmore’s ideas of semantic case grammar for the theta conceptions) - Meaning-base grammars: Cognitive grammar (Langaker and Lakoff) and Functional grammar (Dik, Connolly) Linguistic challenges to Chomsky’s grammar

9. Sentence production performance order Meaning (LF) [Syntax + ?] Sound (PF) Sentence understanding performance order Sound (PF) [Syntax + ?] Meaning (LF) Chomsky grammar order Syntax Sound (PF) his grammar is not in itself a performance process Meaning (LF) but is essential part of it–used in production and understanding = speaker must develop some sort of use rules: 2 basic performance conceptions are possible 1.Resource grammar approach (grammar as a resource) 2.Process grammar approach (grammar is a process) Why Chomsky’s grammar is not a performance grammar?

10. Resource grammar approach We use resource knowledge (e.g. multiplication table) and rules that enable us to access that knowledge 2 sets of Use rules are required : for production and for understanding > > production: meaning/ideas as input and speech as output > > understanding: speech as input and meaning as output >> use rules interact with grammar to provide an output Process grammar approach Production and comprehension processes are interrelated Pragmatic aspects must be taken into consideration no workable performance model based on Chomsky’s grammar has been formulated. Steinberg: something must be wrong with Chomsky’s conception of grammar?!?