Editor for this issue: Brett Churchill <brett
linguistlist.org>
Dear Colleaques, It is proposed to discuss unsolved problems in the generative linguistics in the frame of the on-line conference "The 40-th Anniversary of Generativism", December, 1-12, http://www.ksu.ru/kazan/science/fccl/ann2 In order of preparing to the conference, I've put below the list of problems, suggested by Martin Everaert (Martin.B.EveraertMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuelet.ruu.nl, Utrecht institute of Linguistics). You will receive all discussion, if you subscribe to the conference. It is necessary to send the file: subscribe generate YOUR-E-mail to the address: solovyev
tatincom.ru You can send your opinion, questions to the address: generate
ksu.ru It is necessary to indicate the number of problems, which you would like to discuss. New problems are welcome too. Organization Committee Chair Valery Solovyev Kazan State University, Russia E-mail: solovyev
tatincom.ru The Everaert's list of problems: To begin with, the question what 'unsolved problems' there are in the context of generative grammar is difficult to answered satisfactorily because 'problems' only exist in the context of an explicit theory, and theories change. That means that problems disappear or are created when new theories arise. The minimalist program (Chomsky 1995) is a good case at hand. Some of the basic assumptions in this model are so radically different from the 'standard' P&P model that we can almost start afresh, which means that whatever was supposed to be solved, is either not a problem any more or has become a problem again. Let me give an example. Binding Theory as we know it in generative grammar has been an area in which much work has been done, and some progress has been made. Still numerous issues remained far from resolved. In the minimalist program the theoretical goal is that syntactic operations should be driven only by purely formal and mechanical considerations, like checking morphological features. Chomsky notes that "indices are basically the expression of a relationship and they should be replaceable without loss by a structural account of the relation they annotate". This has far-reaching consequences on how a theory of anaphora should like. How are we to encode binding in the computational system if computations are limited to a morphology-based vocabulary, which excludes indices? (cf. Reuland, NELS 1996) Below I have listed some issues that are mentioned in the context of the research program of my own institute. The list below contains areas (both more general and purely (morpho-)syntactic) in which we have gained some insight but in which we have either successful but incompatible analyses, or just no satisfactory analysis (in random order and very limited): - To what extent does first language acquisition differs from second language acquisition, and what is the role of explicit instruction in the latter. - How is knowledge of different languages stored and accessed? Are they mentally represented as separate systems, or largely identified, only being different in fairly late options? - Is parameter setting an irrevocable act, or can the child resort to previous or coexisting systems of grammatical knowledge? - What is the relation between structure and word-order - What is the status of the strict cycle, - What are the legitimate boundaries of the feature systems used in syntactic computations. (Should, for instance, the syntactic codification of notions such as referentiality, definiteness, familiarity, be allowed?) - Why would natural languages have a contrast between anaphors and pronominals at all? - What are the links between argument structure and properties of aspect and/or event structure? - What is the role of the feature specification for local binding of pronouns? - Is inherent reflexivity a unitary phenomenon, and is it correctly understood as a lexical property? - Does 'morphological' computation differ from 'syntactic' computation, and if so, what are the differences?
Does anyone know a good intermediate text for learning Slovene? I'm already using Slovenscina: A Self-Study Course, published by RTV Ljubljana, which is a good set of audio-lingual intro materials, but I don't know what to use for more substantial work. Ideal for me would be one of those communist-era grammar-translation texts used to prepare foreign students for university study -- the type that starts with chapters like "My Home and Flat", "My Daily Program" and ends with things like "Atoms Must Be Used for Peace". In any case, any book with longer reading texts would be excellent. Any suggestions? James KirchnerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue