Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe Minimalist Program in generative linguistics is predicated on the idea that simplicity is a defining property of the human language faculty, on the one hand; on the other, a central aim of linguistic theorising. Worryingly, however, justifications for either claim are hard to come by in the literature. We sketch a proposal that would allow for both shortcomings to be addressed, and that furthermore honours the program's declared commitment to naturalism. We begin by teasing apart and clarifying the different conceptions of simplicity underlying generative inquiry, in both ontological and theoretical capacities. We then trace a path towards a more robust justification for each type of simplicity principle, drawing on recent work in cognitive science and in philosophy of science, respectively. The resulting proposal hinges on the idea that simplicity is an evolved, virtuous cognitive bias—one that is a condition of our scientific understanding and, ultimately, of successful scientific practice. Finally, we make a case for why minimalists should take this proposal seriously, on the one hand; and for why generative linguistics would make for an interesting case study for philosophy of science, on the other.

This article consists of eight parts: introduction, the organization of a Generative Grammar, operation of the system of base rules, deep structure, surface structure and transformational rules, standard theory, extended standard theory, revised extended standard theory, and minimalism. According to Chomsky, the grammar of a language establishes a relationship between sound and meaning, i.e., between phonetic representation and semantic representation. To discover this grammar is the primary goal of linguistics. One of Chomsky's attempts to accomplish this goal is the standard theory grammar, which has been outlined in the article. We note that the grammar consists of three distinct components: the syntactic component, which consists of a Lexicon and two types of syntactic rules, the Base and the Transformational, the phonological component which consists of phonological rules, and the semantic component, which consists of Semantic rules.

A survey is presented of diff studies found in 2 approaches to the relations between musicology & linguistics: comparative semiotic studies of language & music, & close collaboration between the 2 sci's. The success of these approaches, however, is dependent upon the 2 sci's having attained the same level of development. Since linguistics is presently much more advanced, the problem considered here is: 'How far can recent developments in linguistics contribute towards the elaboration of a sci'fic theory of music?' It is suggested that modern linguistics can assist in the development of musicology at a few points: in the area of traditional structuralism; with regard to the abstract notion of levels of representation as elaborated by N. Chomsky on the basis of criteria of simplicity & generality; &, most importantly, with regard to the contributions that can be made by the generative, transformational grammar evolved by N. Chomsky &his collaborators. M. Duke.