• Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.103-116
• /
• 2004

Chomsky (2001) and Kitahara's (2002) suggestion that object shift occurs prior to movement of the νP-subject to SPEC-T is not on the right track with respect to the Merge operation. According to the Merge operation, TP is necessarily created earlier than CP. Chomsky (2001) suggests that the probe-goal relation between T and SUBJ is evaluated in the CP after it is known whether the position of as has become a trace losing its phonological content. However, the FocP is not a phase (CP). So, Chomsky (2001) and Kitahara's (2002) suggestion is not correct in the case of the movement of OBJ to the spec of Foc in English, either. The aim of this paper is to show that the νP-subject must move to SPEC- T prior to the consecutive movement of the wh-object to SPEC-C via object shift in English. This derivation obeys Chomsky's (2001) so-called probe-goal matching condition.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.127-143
• /
• 2009

Tough-construction is, undoubtedly, one of the most puzzling syntactic problems in the history of transformational grammar. Various approaches have been proposed including Deletion approaches (Akmajian, 1972; Lasnik and Fiengo, 1974) and movement approaches. Among the movement approaches, Chomsky (1977; 1981) argues for movement of null Operator, and Hornstein (2001) argues for a two-step movement equipped with Sideward movement. Most recently, Schueler (2004) and Hartman (2009) each have also argued for a kind of movement approach. With the development of the Minimalist syntax (Chomsky, 1995; Chomsky, 2000; Chomsky, 2001), tough-construction, an age old problem in the description of grammar, turns into another round toward to a more satisfactory answer. By examining the most recent competing analyses of tough-constructions, this paper defends and extends Schueler's (2004) analysis, rather than Hartman's (2009) two step movement approach. Furthermore, this paper proposes that tough-subject originates from the intermediate CP internal Spec-TopicP position rather than from the iterated CP layer (Authier, 1992). This approach has more descriptive power than it was originally argued for in Schueler (2004) and is a step closer toward Minimalism insofar as the conception of government is no longer utilized.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the expletives and EPP in Chomsky's(1998, 1999) Minimalism. Generalized EPP is suggested in Chomsky(1998): every functional head may have an uninterpretable selectional feature for its specifier position to be filled by a proper element. After briefly examining the properties of EPP and ${\Phi}$- features in Chomsky (1998, 1999), there-constructions are examined in terms of Agree. EPP features are satisfied by there-Merge or Move of an associate NP. Case feature is regarded as a reflex of ${\Phi}$-feature. Hence, it is suggested that there is a pure expletive with a [person] feature. It has shown that the uninterpretable [person] feature of there is not erased by the nonfinite T($T_{def}$) in terms of Agree in the Raising and ECM constructions. Again the uninterpretable [person] feature of there Agrees with finite T and moves to SPEC-T to satisfy the EPP feature, and finally the uninterpretable [person] feature of there is erased. PRT(=-en) is also regarded as a defective probe with a [number] feature and a [gender] feature.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.126
• /
• pp.79-108
• /
• 2013

Is the development of linguistic competence due to the learning process or the maturational process? According to Piaget, its development is a genuine learning process involving authentic constructions with gradual disclosure of new possibilities. But According to Chomsky, the acquisition of linguistic competence is due to a genetically conditioned maturational process. So it merely involves the actualization of a set of possibilities existing from the beginning Consequently, Piaget supposes that interaction with the environment plays a shaping role, while Chomsky allows it to have a mere triggering role. In broad respective, Chomsky supposes the rationalism that knowledge is largely inborn, while Piaget in the constructivist position which strives to find a middle course between radical rationalism and radical empiricism. In the one hand, an ultra-rationalistic concept such as 'fixed nucleus' supposed by Chomsky is, in my eye, nor plausible. In the other hand, if Piagetian constructivism is to be sustained, it must be sustained independently of its dubious biological fundament, and merely as a developmental psychological theory. In one word, we need to synthesize Piagetian cognitive approach and Chomskian syntactical, in order to explain exactly the source of human linguistic competence.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.109-142
• /
• 1990

The present pater aims to review Barriers framework proposed by chomsky(1986b) to point out some potential problems and to give an alternative definition of barriers.Chomsky assumes that adjunction to non-argument is possible for syntactic movement But this assumption results in overgeneration of ungrammatical sentences.We do not allow any adjunction in syntax,and abandin the Empty Category Princile,instead we propose Head Licensing Cindition and Antecedent Condition.HLC requires empty non-proneminals to be marked by head either lexical or functional and AC states that traces should be 0-subjacent to their antecedents.

• Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
• /
• v.1 no.4
• /
• pp.561-585
• /
• 2001

It has been claimed recently that the two computational operations Move and Agree of Chomsky (2000, 2001a) should be separated into distinct and independent operations. According to this view, Move is an “operation that applies only to meet an EPP-feature of a functional category.” It is also claimed under that analysis that “a candidate for Move is simply a syntactic object with phonetic content.” The purpose of this short paper is to show that the operation Move should still be viewed as composite; hence it must have the operation Agree as one of its prerequisites. We argue that the EPP feature of T may not be analyzed as an independent feature that triggers overt displacement in syntax. Under Chomsky's (2000, 2001a) theory, displacement in syntax must require the probe-goal (P, G) association before the actual movement takes place. It is shown in this paper that in order for an element $\beta$ to raise to the [Spec, T] position, the $\varphi$-features of T must establish a (P, G) relation with those of $\beta$ prior to movement. In short, Move requires Agree, the EPP feature being dependent on the minimal $\varphi$-feature [person] of nominals.

• The Research Journal of the Costume Culture
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.317-335
• /
• 1994

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the relation of the mentalistics linguistics and costume, and to clarify the relationship between language as psychological expressions and costume to understand the phenomena of human costume behavior more deeply and comprehensively. As for the analysis of he costume phenomena, Noam Chomsky's psychological linguistic theory were applied to costume system. In this respect, particularly, by means of Chomsky's later theory(1965), the costume behavior were analyzed. The followings are the findings of the analysis : 1. The Syntactic Component: (※ See Full-Text) 2. The Semantic Component. The costme behavior is similar to a language system. Just as one morpheme or a phrase and phrases make different sentences, so various methods wearing costume make different sentences, so various methods wearing costume make different forms is costume. Language and costume have dictionary entry showing the meaning of vocabulary, and rules combining the individual meaning of the dictionary entry to complete the sentence.

• Proceedings of the KSPS conference
• /
• 1996.10a
• /
• pp.117-122
• /
• 1996

This paper proposes a derivational account of tensing and neutralization of obstruents in Korean within the theory of Government Phonology (GP) (Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud 1990, henceforth KLV; Park 1996). We begin by outling the relevant tensing and neutralization data in Korean. We point out several problems that need to be addressed in any account of these data. We then set out the central notions of GP, pointing out how adherence to the requirement that government relations remain constant throughout a derivation under the Projection Principle prevents a GP account of tensing and neutralization in Korean, which requires government relations to switch between lexical and phonetic representations. To address this problem, we propose abandoning the Projection Principle, extending lexical representations in GP along the lines of the Markedness Theory approach (Michaels 1989), and adopting the economy principles for derivation of the Minimalist approach (Chomsky 1993; Chomsky & Lasnik 1991). finally, we summarize the analysis of obstruent phenomena in Korean within GP extended in these ways.

• Genomics & Informatics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.5-11
• /
• 2011

Treating genomes just as languages raises the possibility of producing concise generalizations about information in biological sequences. Grammars used in this way would constitute a model of underlying biological processes or structures, and that grammars may, in fact, serve as an appropriate tool for theory formation. The increasing number of biological sequences that have been yielded further highlights a growing need for developing grammatical systems in bioinformatics. The intent of this review is therefore to list some bibliographic references regarding the recent progresses in the field of grammatical modeling of biological sequences. This review will also contain some sections to briefly introduce basic knowledge about formal language theory, such as the Chomsky hierarchy, for non-experts in computational linguistics, and to provide some helpful pointers to start a deeper investigation into this field.

• Lingua Humanitatis
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.175-198
• /
• 2006

Quite a few historiographers of language science have measured the applicability of the term 'revolution' toward the line of work initiated by Chomsky, with the conclusion to the positive or negative effect as the case may be. This paper starts out with a brief review of this issue, with an interim conclusion that, while Chomskyan linguistics may be regarded as revolutionary in certain aspects, terms like 'revolution' and 'paradigm' are hardly applicable here in the way they were originally intended by Thomas Kuhn. It can be said, nontechnically, that the model of theory under discussion is at once 'revolutionary' and 'evolutionary' - in the sense that revolutions in linguistics have not resulted in abrupt loss of continuity with past 'paradigms', if there were any such. Chomsky's theory of language plays the same role of consolidation and refinement of structuralism that, say, the neogrmmarians played in their day. It has continued some fundamental traits of its predecessor, recovered others, and unwittingly rediscovered still others. But this is not the main thrust of the present paper. For, even if Chomskyan theory were to be looked upon as straightforwardly 'revolutionary', that revolution has not been a felicitous one. Some critic (Pieter A. M. Seuren, to be specific) goes as far as to say that "largely as a result of Chomsky's actions, linguistics is now sociologically in a very unhealthy state $\cdots$ to the point even of threatening to make that whole school of linguistics intellectually irrelevant." Besides, under the present state of language science that strikes one as typical of what Kuhn has characterized as "pre-paradigmatic" insecurity and disharmony, an unhealthy situation might take place if we were to think of the theoretical disagreements as conflicts between 'incommensurable' viewpoints-between 'rival paradigms' as it were-thereby avoiding or evading rational discussion. Another danger concerns the bandwagon effect, with linguists prematurely boarding each novel theory seemingly destined for popularity, for fear of being left clinging to an outdated 'paradigm.' Here lies another reason why the notion of 'revolution', Kuhnian or not, might as well be put aside, in the historiography of linguistics at the least.