Journal of Researches in Linguistics

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Terms and conditions of submitting an article

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Reviewers

Reviewers

Reviewers

Reviewers

Reviewers2021

Reviewers 2020

Reviewers 2019

The Problem of Simplicity in Formal Syntax

    Authors

    1 Academy of Wisdom and Philosophy of Iran

    2 Department of Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

    3 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

,

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

It is believed that achieving simplicity in describing a system is a prominent component for defining the scientific methods. It also is one of the fundamental goals of the philosophy of science. To be more efficient, linguistics in general and generative linguistics in particular try to obtain a high degree of simplicity. In order to analyze simplicity, this article compares two dominant theories in which tendency to simplicity is a methodological commitment .The first one is a "syntactic theory" introduced by Chomsky as X bar theory, and the other is a logical theory"type theory" used by R. Montague for logical syntactic analysis of language .This analysis is based on two reasons as the theories both a) have the same conclusion and b) use formal methods. Formalization has two consequences: generalization and precision. Generalization in itself is an outcome of simplicity, in which the more quantitative relations results in a more simple system. Furthermore, a precise examination indicates that such formal methods do not necessarily lead to the same results. This is due to internal relations among elements and principles in the theory. The following analysis will show that such anticipation is not always realizable and describing simplicity is not always simple. Based on Gillies theory, it concludes that for comparison between the two theories, explanatory surplus principle is a firm criterion.

Keywords

References
کتابنامه
جهانگیری، نادر، محمد رضا مولایی و سعید فکری. (1373)."فضا های نظامدار الگویی مناسب برای تحلیل زبان به عنوان پدیده ای پویا"، مجلۀ زبان­شناسی، شماره اول، سال یازدهم:صص37 – 32.
دبیرمقدم، محمد.(1383). زبان­شناسی نظری: پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی، ویراست دوم، تهران: سمت.
گیلیس، دونالد.(1381). فلسفه علم در قرن بیستم ، ترجمه حسن میانداری، تهران: سمت.
موحد، ضیاء.(1364). " شکل منطقی و ژرف ساخت"، مجله زبان­شناسی، شماره دوم،سال دوم،صص 18 – 2.
موحد، ضیاء.( 1383 ). درآمدی به منطق جدید، تهران:شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
 
Alwood, J,Anderson, Lars – Gunnar,and Dähl O. (1989) Logic in Linguistics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barr–Hillel, Y.(1970) Aspects of Language: Essays and Lectures on Philosophy of Language, Linguistic Philosophy and Methodology of Linguistics. Amsterdam: Magnes Press
Bertalenffy, L, Von (1969) General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.
Cann, Ronnie (1994) Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N, (1965) Aspect of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky,N (1970) "Remarks on nominalization". In: Reading in English Transformational Grammar. Edited by R, Jacobs and P.Rosenbaum. 148-221 Mass Ginn:Waltham.
Chomsky, N.9 (1975) The Logical Sructure of Liguistic Theory. NewYork: Plenum.
Chomsky, N (1981) Lecturers on Government and Binding. Dordrechet: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Ptaeger Chomsky, N (1986 b) Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.(1988) Language and Problems of Knowledge. The Managua Lectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993) "Priciples and Parameters Theory". In J. Jaccobs, A.von Stechew, W. Sternefeld and T. Venneman (eds): 506-569 Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, J. and Newson, M (1997) Chomsky, s Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cresswell, M (1973) Logics and Languages, London: Methuen Young Books.
Geach, Peter (1972) Logic Matters. Oxford: Basil Blackwll
Haegeman, L (1998) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hurford, R, and Heasley, B, (1980), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R (1997) X bar Syntax: a Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, David, E and Lappin, Shalom (1997), "A Critique of the Minimalist Program". In Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 273 - 333.
Kayne, R (1994) "The Anti symmetry of Syntax". Linguistic Inquiry , MIT Press, Monograph: 25
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991) "The Position of Subjects". Lingua , 85 :211 - 58.
Kuroda, S, (1988) "Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese" In W.Poser (ed), Papers on the second international workshop on Japanese Syntax. CSLL, Stanford University, California.
Lasnik, H., and uriagereka, J., (2005), A course in minimalist syntax, Oxford: Blackwell.
Lewis, D.(1972) "General Semantics",Synthese 22, 18 - 67.
Montague, R. ( 1970a.) "English as a Formal Language". In B. Visentini et al. Linguaggi Nella Societa Nella Tecnica. Milan,Editzion di Comunita: 89 - 224. Reprinted in Montague (1974).
Montague, R., (1970 b) "Universal Grammar", Theoria 36,373 - 398
Montague, R., (1973) "The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English", In J., Hintikka, J., Moravesik, and p. Suppes (eds). Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel
Montague, R (1974) Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers of Richard Montague, ed. by R.H, Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press.  
Newmeyer, F. (1986b) Linguistic Theory in America. New York: Academic Press.
Partee, B. (1975) "Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar". Linguistic Inquiry. 6, 203 – 300.
Partee, B. H (2004) Compositionality in Formal Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Radford, A. (1990) Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sportiche, D. (1988a) "A theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure". Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-49.
Stowell, Tim. (1989) "Subjects, Specifiers, and X bar theory" In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch (eds) 232 – 262. Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Watanabe, A. (1992) "Subjacency and S–structure Movement of Wh in – situ", Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 255–291.
Journal of Researches in Linguistics
Volume 2, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
December 2010
Pages 101-119
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics