Labeled bracketing
SYNTAX: a way of representing the structure of an expression by writing
square brackets ('[' and ']') to the left and right hand side of its component
parts, i.e. words or °constituents. The
brackets carry subscripts, so-called labels, which state the category of the unit
in question.
EXAMPLE: the structure of the sentence the boy may eat apples
is written as in (i):
(i) [IP[NP[Det the][N boy]][I'[I may][VP[V eat][NP[N apples]]]]]The bracket notation is equivalent to the representation by means of a °tree structure. The labeled brackets correspond to the nodes in the tree. Thus, a labeled bracketing like (ii) is equivalent to the °tree in (iii).
(ii) [NP [Det the] [N boy]]
(iii) NP
/ \
Det N
/ \
the boy
Labial
PHONOLOGY: a labial sound is produced by a narrowing or closure of the
lips.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch [p], [b], [v], [w] and [m] are labial. The term
'labial' is also used to refer to both °bilabial
and °labiodental.
Labiodental
PHONOLOGY: an articulation which involves a contact between the lower
lip and upper front teeth.
EXAMPLE: in the production of the labiodental sound /f/, the lower lip
nearly touches the upper front teeth.
Lambda-abstraction
SEMANTICS: the logical operation of constructing expressions denoting predicates
or functions by means of the °lambda-operator.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Lambda-operator (lambda-operator)
SEMANTICS: an operator which makes it possible to construct expressions
which denote predicates or functions. Adding the lambda-operator to
°predicate logic makes it possible to
construct predicates from formulae with free variables.
EXAMPLE: two expressions with lambda-operators are given in (i):
(i) a lambda x [ kiss(john,x) ]
b lambda x [ man(x) & Neg married(x) ]
The lambda-expression in (i)a denotes the property of being kissed by John,
the one in (i)b denotes the property of being an unmarried man.
The lambda-operator plays an important role in
°type logic, as a mechanism for making
functions. If a is an expression of arbitrary type b and v
is a variable of arbitrary type a, then lambda v [ a ] is an
expression of type <a,b>, i.e. a function from things of type a
to things of type b. The lambda-operator makes it possible to give a logical
translation of every expression, including quantified noun phrases:
(ii) a every boy
b lambda P [ All(x) [ boy(x) -> P(x) ]]
The noun phrase in (ii)a is translated into a logical expression denoting a
function from properties to truth values, assigning the value 1 to those
properties that every boy has. When we combine the noun phrase in (ii)a with
a predicate like walk, then the expression in (ii)b is applied to the
translation of walk. In other words: the translation of (iii)a is (iii)b
which is logically equivalent with (iii)c (an equivalence which follows from the
semantics of the lambda-operator):
(iii) a Every boy walks
b lambda P [ All(x) [ boy(x) -> P(x) ]] (walk)
c All(x) [ boy(x) -> walk(x) ]
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Laminal
PHONOLOGY: an articulation involving the blade of the tongue (=lamina).
Landing-site
SYNTAX: if °Move alpha applies to
an element, the position it is moved to is called its landing-site. The original
position is sometimes referred to as its extraction site.
Larynx
PHONOLOGY: part of the vocal tract that is just above the wind pipe,
and contains the vocal cords. It is also referred to as 'Adam's apple'.
Lateral
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which characterizes
sounds that are produced by raising the mid section of the tongue preventing the air
from flowing outward through the center of the mouth, while allowing it to pass over
one or both sides of the tongue.
EXAMPLE: [l] as in lie.
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Halle & Clements (1983).
Latinate affix
MORPHOLOGY: a term used for °affixes which
are derived historically from Latin (or Greek), and which only co-occur with Latin or
Greek roots.
EXAMPLE: the English suffix -ion cannot be used with native
(Germanic) verb roots (*breaktion), while it attaches freely to latinate
ones (deduction).
LIT.
Aronoff (1976),
Spencer (1991).
Layered morphology
MORPHOLOGY: a term introduced in Simpson & Withgott (1986) to distinguish
morphological systems which imply constituent structure from morphological systems
which make use of templates (°template
morphology). Two major differences between these types of systems are: (a) layered
morphology gives rise to headed structures, while template morphology does not; and (b)
layered morphology is constrained by some principle of Adjacency, while template
morphology is not.
EXAMPLE: English and Dutch have layered morphologies, while Arabic and
Navajo have template morphologies.
LIT.
McCarthy (1981),
Simpson & Withgott (1986),
Spencer (1991).
Left Branch Condition
SYNTAX: one of the constraints on extraction formulated by Ross (1967)
(°island), which says that no Noun Phrase on
the left branch of another Noun Phrase may be extracted from that Noun Phrase.
EXAMPLE: in a structure like (i) the NP on the left branch cannot be
extracted, witness *whose did you like book.
(i) NP
/ \
NP N'
/ \
whose book
Left-dislocation
SYNTAX: construction akin to
°topicalization. Contrary to what the
name might suggest, no overt movement is involved. The element which is placed
in front of the sentence is associated with some kind of pronoun:
(i) that booki, I don't think he has read itiThis construction is also known as a Hanging Topic Left Dislocation.
Left downward monotonicity
SEMANTICS: a property of a °determiner D in
°Generalized Quantifier Theory. A
determiner D is left downward monotone if and only if in a domain of entities E condition
(i) holds.
(i) for all A, B, A' subset E: if D(A,B) and A' subset A, then D(A',B)Left downward monotonicity can be tested as in (ii); as shown there, all and no are left downward monotone, but some and exactly two are not.
(ii) a If all/no animals walked, then all/no dogs walked.
b If some/exactly two animals walked, then some/exactly two dogs walked.
Other terms are antipersistent and left monotone decreasing.
Left monotone decreasing
°Left downward monotonicity.
Left monotone increasing
°Left upward monotonicity.
Left upward monotonicity
SEMANTICS: a property of a °determiner
D in °Generalized Quantifier
Theory. A determiner D has the property of being left upward monotone if and
only if in a domain of entities E condition (i) holds.
(i) for all A,B,A' subset E: if D(A,B) and A subset A', then D(A',B)Left upward monotonicity can be tested as in (ii); as shown there, some and at least two are left upward monotone, but all and exactly two are not.
(ii) a If some/at least two dogs walked, then some/at least two animals walked.
b If all/exactly two dogs walked, then all/exactly two animals walked.
Other terms are persistent and left monotone increasing.
Leftness condition
SYNTAX: condition proposed in Chomsky (1976) which states that a pronoun
cannot be °coindexed with a
°variable to its right.
°Weak crossover.
LIT.
Chomsky (1976),
Koopman & Sportiche (1982).
Lenition
PHONOLOGY: a process of weakening. The diachronic development in (i)
can be analyzed as a case of lenition
(Hooper (1976),
Katamba (1989)):
(i) Latin Italian Spanish French
vita vita vida vie 'life'
t -> t -> d -> 0
Lenition can be explained by referring to the
°sonority hierarchy: the progression
down the sonority hierarchy is from a voiceless stop to a voiced stop before deletion
takes place. Lenition can also occur in one language.
Level
MORPHOLOGY: term first introduced in Allen (1978) to express the idea
that different types of word formation rules and phonological rules take place
in linearly ordered blocks. The idea of levels and level ordering has played a
central role in the development of the framework of
°Lexical Morphology.
EXAMPLE: English has two types of affixes:
°stress shifting ones
(= °Class I affixes) and
°stress neutral ones
(= °Class II affixes). To account for this,
it is assumed that Class I affixation takes place at level I, while Class II
affixation takes place at the later Level II. The words derived at Level I undergo
the phonological rules of this level, while the words derived at Level II can no
longer undergo these phonological rules. More recently the term 'Level' is replaced
by the term °stratum.
LIT.
Siegel (1974),
Allen (1978),
Kiparsky (1982),
Halle & Mohanan (1985),
Spencer (1991).
Level I/II affix
°Class I/II affix.
Level Ordering Hypothesis
MORPHOLOGY: a hypothesis proposed in Siegel (1974) which takes the form in (i):
(i) Class I affixation
\/
Word Stress Rules
\/
Class II affixation
This hypothesis embodies the claim that affixation takes place in two linearly
ordered blocks, which are separated by the word stress rules.
EXAMPLE: the derivation of the English words productívity
and prodúctiveness runs as follows. In the case of productivity,
we first put together pro-, duct, -ive, and -ity
(all Class I), and then we apply the stress rules (productívity).
The derivation of productiveness is crucially different. First we put
together pro-, duct, and -ive, then we apply the stress
rules (prodúctive), and only then do we have the chance to add the
Class II affix -ness, giving prodúctiveness. Since the
affixation of -ness takes place after the stress rules have applied, it
is correctly predicted that -ness cannot affect the stress already assigned
to productive. Allen (1978)
has replaced Siegel's Level Ordering Hypothesis
by the more detailed °Extended
Level ordering Hypothesis.
Lexeme
MORPHOLOGY: a term that is used to express the idea that inflected forms,
which are words themselves, are still variants of one single word.
EXAMPLE: if we take a look at the declension of the Russian adjective
bol'soj 'large, big, grand', we find that this word has a variety of forms:
(i) bol's-oj nominative singular masculine
bol's-omu dative singular masc.
bol's-ix genitive plural masc.
(ii) bol's-aja nom.sg. feminine
bol's-oj dat.sg. fem.
bol's-ix gen.pl. fem.
In a sense each of these variants is itself a word: the term 'word form' is used
for them, and the term 'lexeme' is used for the more general sense, so that we can
say that bol'somu is a form of the lexeme BOL'SOJ (lexemes are represented
in upper case).
Lexical ambiguity
SEMANTICS: the type of ambiguity that arises when a word has multiple meanings.
The word bank is often cited as an instance of lexical ambiguity.
Lexical category
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a term that is used to indicate that words belong to
different classes with different morphological and syntactic properties. The major
lexical categories are noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), and preposition (P). Other
terms are lexical class and syntactic category or class.
Lexical category prominence
rule
PHONOLOGY: a labeling rule proposed in Liberman & Prince (1977) to provide
the nodes of a metrical tree (°metrical
phonology) with labels strong or weak expressing
°prominence in systems where uniform sw- or
ws-labeling fails. It labels higher level constituents (i.e.
°feet (=F)) that consist of syllables. The main
part of this labeling rule in English states that in a configuration [A B], B is
labeled strong if and only if it branches.
EXAMPLE: Compare the following examples:
/ \ / \
Fs Fw Fw Fs
/\ | / \ /\
s w | s w s w
| | | | | | |
húrricàne àchromátic
The final foot of hurricane is labeled weak since it does not branch,
while the final foot of achromatic is labeled strong since it branches.
Lexical component
MORPHOLOGY: term used for one autonomous part or module of the grammar,
viz. the module where the word formation rules and the (lexical) phonological rules
are applied. The words derived in the lexical component are inserted into the
syntactic component, and the postlexical component. Another term used for the
lexical component is °Lexicon.
LIT.
Kiparsky (1982,
1985).
Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS)
SYNTAX: semantic level of representation encoding certain aspects of
the meaning of predicates through e.g. decomposition, and linked to
predicate-argument structure. Also called lexico-conceptual structure.
EXAMPLE: the predicator give is taken to be specified
at the level of LCS as in (i).
(i) give: [CAUSE (x, [GO (y, [TO (z) ])])]In the specification give is decomposed into the three predicates CAUSE, GO, and TO, according to the intuition that a sentence such as John gave me the book means that John (=x) caused the book (=y) to go to me (=z). An adequate analysis captures semantic relations between sentences. Thus the fact that John gave me the book implies the book went to me, is accounted for by the mere fact that the LCS of the book went to me, i.e. [GO (y, [TO (z)])], is a proper part of (i).
Lexical decomposition
°Componential analysis.
Lexical insertion
Operation of the °base component by
which lexical items are inserted into syntactic structure. The resulting
structure is a °D-structure, which
obeys principles of °X-bar theory,
°theta-theory, and the
°EPP.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965,
1981,
1992).
Lexical integrity
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a term used to refer to one of the most important
properties of words, viz. the property that NO syntactic process is allowed to
refer to parts of a word.
EXAMPLE: if we take the English compound teapot, it is not
allowed to move tea out of the compound by, for instance, topicalization
(cf. *Tea, I bought pots vs. Teapots, I bought). It is furthermore
impossible to refer to tea by using an anaphoric device such as a pronoun:
we cannot say he took the teai pot, and poured iti into the cup, meaning
'he poured the tea into the cup'.
°Lexicalist hypothesis.
LIT.
Lapointe (1980),
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987),
Spencer (1991).
Lexical Morphology
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: a theoretical model first proposed in
Pesetsky (1979), and elaborated in
Kiparsky (1982). Although it is
impossible to say that there is a single model of Lexical Morphology (also known
as Lexical Phonology), all theories have in common that the word formation rules and the
phonological rules both apply in a single component of the grammar, viz. the
°Lexicon. We will present here a brief outline
of Kiparsky's (1982) model, and next refer to a number of publications in which
this model has undergone more or less significant changes.
Siegel (1974)
°Level Ordering Hypothesis
and the Kiparsky-Mascaró theory of Cyclic Phonology lie at the heart of
the development of Kiparsky's (1982) model of Lexical Morphology/Phonology.
Within Cyclic Phonology it is assumed that cyclicity is a stipulated property
of rules, and that cyclic application is a mode of application which is not an
inherent property of the grammar. The basic idea of Kiparsky's (1982) paper is
that the cyclic application of phonological rules should follow from the organization
of the lexicon. Kiparsky proposes the following model:
Underived lexical items L \/ E Level 1 morphology <-> Level 1 phonology X \/ I Level 2 morphology <-> Level 2 phonology C \/ O Level n morphology <-> Level n phonology N Syntax -> Postlexical PhonologyEach level is associated with a class of phonological rules for which it defines the domain of application. Within the lexicon, the output of a word formation rule is submitted to the phonological rules of that level. In this respect, the rules of lexical phonology are intrinsically cyclic, because they re-apply after each step of word formation at their level. The rules of postlexical phonology, on the other hand, are intrinsically noncyclic, since they apply after all word formation and syntactic processes. Since the appearance of Kiparsky's paper a number of different models of Lexical Morphology/Phonology have been proposed, making (slightly) different assumptions about the nature of phonological rules or morphological processes or the interaction between the two (e.g. Pulleyblank (1986), Mohanan (1986)). One aspect of the theory which is particularly prone to variation is level ordering (e.g. Kiparsky (1985), Halle & Mohanan (1985), Booij & Rubach (1987)). The theory of Lexical Morphology/Phonology has not remained unchallenged. Halle & Vergnaud (1987) reject this model primarily on the basis of the existence of °bracketing paradoxes, and basically return to the SPE-model in which morphology and phonology are autonomous components of the grammar.
Lexical Phonology
°Lexical Morphology.
Lexical relatedness
MORPHOLOGY: a principle proposed in
Williams (1981a) to account for
°bracketing paradoxes, which says
that X can be related to Y if X and Y differ only in a head position or in the
non-head position. Williams views the question of bracketing paradoxes from the
perspective of a concept of relatedness between lexical entries. In his terms,
the problem is to explain how words such as hydroelectric and
hydroelec-tricity are related to each other, and to the words
electric and electricity. From a morphological point of
view one has to assign the following structure to hydroelectricity:
[hydro [electric+ity]]. However, the semantically motivated structure for
this word is [[hydro+electric] ity]. Williams' solution runs as follows.
He assigns the structure [hydro [electric+ity]] to this word, and due
to the principle of Lexical Relatedness he can relate hydroelectricity
(= X) to hydroelectric (= Y), since they differ only in the head position
(= -ity).
Lexical semantics
SEMANTICS: The study of word meaning. The lexical items that lexical
semantics is concerned with, form the basic expressions that constitute composite
meaning. As in semantics in general, one distinguishes three major approaches to
meaning: we can ask ourselves how words refer to entities (denotational), how
words are represented in the mental lexicon (mentalistic) and how words are used
in the appropriate contexts (pragmatic). With respect to compositional theories,
two lexical theories are directly relevant:
°decomposition of word meaning, and a
theory using °meaning postulates.
Traditional problems concern semantic relations between words
(like °homonymy,
°synonymy and
°hyper- and
°hyponymy),
°thematic roles, fixed versus variable
word meaning and °polysemy and metaphoric and
°idiomatic interpretation.
LIT.
Cruse (1986),
Jackendoff (1990).
Lexical transformation
MORPHOLOGY: a device originally proposed by
Roeper & Siegel (1978)
to account for the derivation of
°synthetic compounds such as truck
driver, fast-acting and pan-fried out of the underlying lexical
representations drive a truck, act fast and fry in a pan.
Given the °Lexicalist Hypothesis,
this transformation must be lexical, since it alters the categorial features of the
input. Roeper & Siegel's account involves three operations, two of which have
transformational power. First, they propose the
°Affix Rule which adds a suffix to a verbal
stem, and simultaneously creates a lexically unspecified structural position to the
left of the verb. This °lexical
transformation is the basic mechanism in Roeper & Siegel's account and it changes
representation (i) into (ii). The next step is
°Subcategorization Insertion,
which inserts a word into the subcategorization slot (cf. iii), and the final step
is the °Compound Rule, which moves the
inserted word into the lexically unspecified slot created by the Affix Rule (cf. iv):
(i) drive [..]NP => (= Affix Rule) (ii) [[..] + drive + -er]N [..]NP => (= Subcategorization Insertion) (iii) [[..] + drive + -er]N [a truck]NP => (= Compound Rule) (iv) [[truck]N + drive + -er]N
Lexicalist Hypothesis
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a hypothesis which entails that syntactic
transformations operate on syntactic constituents only, and can only
insert or delete designated elements. This means that transformations
cannot be used to insert, delete, permute, or substitute subparts of words.
The lexicalist hypothesis comes in two versions: (a) a weak version which
says that transformations cannot be used in derivational morphology
(= Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis), and (b) a strong version which says that
transformations can also not be used in the domain of
°inflection (= Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis).
Recently, the lexicalist hypothesis has been challenged by
Baker's (1988)
syntactic °incorporation hypothesis.
LIT.
Chomsky (1970),
Jackendoff (1972),
Wasow (1977),
Roeper & Siegel (1978),
Spencer (1991).
Lexicalization
MORPHOLOGY: phenomenon by which a morphologically complex word starts
to behave like an underived word in some respect, which means that at least one
feature (semantic, syntactic, or phonological) becomes unpredictable. Thus a
lexicalized word has at least one aspect which cannot be predicted by the general
rules of grammar.
EXAMPLE: the Dutch adjective reusachtig has two readings,
one is transparently derived from the noun reus_N and the suffix
-achtig which can be paraphrased as 'like a reus (giant)',
and one which simply means 'very big'. This latter reading is lexicalized.
Additional evidence for this comes from the fact that in this latter reading
the pronunciation is slightly different: the final phoneme of reus
is pronounced as [z], while it is pronounced as [s] in the transparent reading.
Assuming that lexicalization eradicates internal boundaries, the phonological
rule FINAL DEVOICING cannot apply in the lexicalized form.
Lexicon
The component in the grammar which is in its bare form a list of words or
lexical entries. It contains information about (a) the pronunciation, (b)
the meaning, (c) morphological properties, and (d) syntactic properties of
its entries. Furthermore, the Lexicon must contain at least the idiosyncratic
information about its entries. Up to this point there is little or no controversy
among linguists. However, beyond this matters become more complex. American
structuralists
(e.g. Bloomfield (1933))
assume that the Lexicon contains only information that is completely idiosyncratic.
Any property of a word which can be predicted by phonological, morphological, or
syntactic rule will therefore be excluded from the Lexicon. In this approach the
Lexicon is simply a list of morphemes. In other approaches
(e.g.
Halle (1973),
Jackendoff (1975),
Aronoff (1976)
the Lexicon is more complex. Next to a list of underived lexical entries,
it contains a word formation component. Hence, in this approach morphology is
an integrated part of the Lexicon.
EXAMPLE: the English Lexicon contains the adjective opaque and
the nominalizing suffix -ity. It furthermore contains a suffixation rule
which adds -ity to adjectives, and by means of this rule the form
[[opaque] ity] is derived. This form is changed into opacity in the
separate phonological component. In a third approach, known as the theory of
°Lexical Morphology/Phonology
(e.g. Kiparsky (1982)),
the Lexicon contains (a) a list of underived lexical
items, (b) linearly ordered levels of word formation rules, and (c) a list of
level ordered phonological rules. The difference between this approach and the
preceding one is the position of the (lexical) phonological rules. In the theory
of Lexical Morphology/Phonology the derived form [[opaque] ity] is changed into
opacity within the Lexicon. These three approaches to the Lexicon are the
most prominent ones.
Spencer (1991) provides a good
review of the function assigned to the Lexicon in a great number of theories.
See °permanent lexicon and
°potential lexicon.
L-feature
SYNTAX: feature of a lexical item which is involved in
°feature checking.
EXAMPLE: the functional heads T(ense) and AGR(eement) incorporate
features of the verb (V-features) which serve to check the morphological
features of the verb.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Liar's paradox
SEMANTICS: the paradox discovered by the Greek Stoics of which
sentence (i) is the simplest EXAMPLE:
(i) Sentence (i) is falseFor sentence (i) to be true, sentence (i) has to be false. Conversely, if sentence (i) is false, it has to be true. The liar's paradox can be avoided by prohibiting that an expression refers to itself, i.e. by making a strict separation between °object language (the language as object) and °meta-language (the language as medium).
Licensing
SYNTAX: it has been proposed that well-formedness conditions on syntactic
structure (esp. the principle of
°Full Interpretation) may be viewed
as licensing conditions: the presence of an element in a structure is permitted if
the element is licensed in any of a small number of ways. E.g. an argument in a
structure is licensed if its chain contains a visible
°theta-position. Similarly, a VP is
licensed if it functions as a predicate (hence the obligatoriness of sentential
subjects stipulated in the °EPP).
LIT.
Chomsky (1986a).
Light verb
SYNTAX: thematically incomplete verb which only in combination with a
predicative complement qualifies as a °predicate.
EXAMPLE: the Japanese verb suru in (i)a
°case-marks but does not theta-mark the
complement NP hanashi which in its turn theta-marks John and Mary.
As shown by the contrast with (i)b, the verb suru only contributes the
past tense (shita = suru + past) and the case-marking (-o)
of the complement.
(i) a John-wa Mary-ni hanashi-o shita
John-topic Mary-to talk-Acc suru-past
'John talked to Mary'
b John-no Mary-e-no hanashi
John-Gen Mary-to-Gen talk
Liquid
PHONOLOGY: a cover term for
°laterals ( [l] ) and various r-sounds.
Listeme
MORPHOLOGY: term introduced in
Di Sciullo & Williams
(1987)
to refer to one important conception of a word, viz. the conception of a
word as 'listed object'. Listemes are linguistic expressions memorized and
stored by speakers, and as such their study belongs to the domain of psychology
and not linguistics.
Listing
MORPHOLOGY: a notion introduced in
Aronoff (1976)
which says that words with some idiosyncratic aspect are stored in the lexicon,
which means that they fill a particular slot. Semantic drift is one of the
reasons why words are listed.
EXAMPLE: the English word transmission has the regularly determined
meaning 'act of transmitting', but next to this it is used as a technical term
(transmission of a car). On its idiosyncratic reading the word
transmission is listed.
Live on property
°Conservativity.
L-marking
SYNTAX: process which plays a crucial role in the definition of a
°blocking category and thus in
that of a °barrier. Roughly, a category
is L-marked iff it is theta-marked by a lexical head.
EXAMPLE: in (i)
(i) John fixed the car in a stupid waythe verb fix L-marks its direct object NP the car, but not the subject John (because this is assumed to receive its theta-role not from V0 directly, but from VP, which is not a lexical head), nor the adjunct in a stupid way (which is not theta-marked at all). (Absence of) L-marking is invoked to explain the °Subject Condition and the °Adjunct Condition. EXAMPLE: : only in (ii)a is who moved out of an L-marked phrase (=/= barrier), hence the contrast between (ii)a and b.
(ii) a who did you see [ a picture of t]?
b * who did [a picture of t] upset you?
Chomsky's (1986b) definition of L-marking is (iii).
(iii) Where alpha is a lexical category, alpha L-marks beta iff beta
agrees with the head of gamma that is theta-governed by alpha
This definition entails that it is not only the theta-marked category itself which
can be L-marked, but also its head (which of course agrees with itself) and its
specifier if this agrees with the head under
°spec-head agreement.
Loan word
Word which is borrowed from another language and usually is not yet fully
integrated into the grammatical system of the language.
EXAMPLE: English has borrowed the word apartheid from Dutch.
Local binding
SYNTAX: notion of
°binding theory: alpha locally binds
beta iff alpha binds beta, and for all gamma, if gamma binds beta then either
gamma binds alpha or gamma is alpha. In other words: alpha locally binds beta iff
alpha is the closest binder of beta. Consequently, beta is locally A-bound if its
local binder occupies an A-position, and locally A-bar-bound if its closest binder
is in an A-bar position.
Localism
SEMANTICS: the hypothesis that the meaning of expressions can be
described in terms of (abstract) location and movement. Localism has been a
pplied in the study of verb meanings and
°thematic relations. According to
localism, all sentences that express a state can be analyzed as location in a
space and all sentences that express a change of state as movement from or to
a space. In Mary is ill, Mary is located in the 'illness-space' and in
John gave the book to Mary, there is a movement of a
°theme (the book) going from a
°source (John) to a
°goal (Mary).
LIT.
Fillmore (1968),
Gruber (1965),
Jackendoff (1983).
Locality
SYNTAX: One of the central notions in
°GB theory referring to the assumption
that all syntactic relations, whether created by movement or by binding, should
be local, that is, should not exceed a certain length or distance.
°Binding,
°government, the
°ECP and the notions of
°Barrier and
°Minimality all serve the purpose of
enforcing locality on syntactic relations.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a,
1986b),
Koster (1987).
Logic
The study of reasoning. Originally, the philosophical aim was to find deductive
rules which prove statements from given premises and axioms. In formalizing
rules for natural deduction, logical languages have been developed, designed
to provide translations of statements. In these translations only certain logical
aspects are made explicit, depending on the language chosen.
°Propositional logic and
°predicate logic are the languages
of standard logic. A logical language is defined by a syntax and a semantics.
The syntax defines the formulas of the language on the basis of a vocabulary of
logical constants and other basic expressions, it specifies a set of axioms
(expressed in conformity with the syntax of that language) and a set of explicit
rules of inference for deriving further
°formulas from the
axioms. The semantics provides a set of
°truth conditions
defining when a formula is true given an interpretation of its basic expressions.
The syntax and semantics of standard logic can be extended in different ways.
The syntax can be extended with more logical operators (tense operators and modal
operators) or with variables over predicates (second-order logic). That way we
can incorporate °tense and
°modal
interpretations. A more radical departure from standard logic is type logic, in
which all expressions are assigned to a particular set-theoretical category.
Next to two-valued logics (in which propositions are exclusively true or false)
three-valued logics (true, false and indefinite) and other many-valued logics
have been defined. The characteristic of these languages is that they do not
obey the principle of the excluded middle, which says that a formula
must be either true or false.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Logical constants
SEMANTICS: those expressions within a logical system which determine
the class of valid arguments of that system. The logical constants of
°propositional logic are the
truth-functional °connectives. The logical
constants of °predicate logic add to
this set the °quantifiers. By adding more
logical constants to this set (like the identity sign '=', or tense operators)
more complicated logical systems can be studied, allowing a larger class of valid
arguments.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Logical equivalence
°Equivalence.
Logical form
SEMANTICS: a representation of all and only the logical properties of
an expression, usually in a non-ambiguous, precise logical language. The term
was originally used in opposition with grammatical form, the idea being
that the grammatical form of a sentence is often misleading with respect to its
logical properties, for example in the case of
°definite descriptions.
SYNTAX: a distinct, structural level of representation, usually
abbreviated as LF (°T-model), which contains
all (and only) the syntactic information that is relevant for semantic interpretation.
LF is thus taken to be the interface between an expression (language) and its
logical form (in the semantic sense). LF is derived from
°S-structure through instances of
°affect alpha, e.g.
°Quantifier Raising and
Wh-raising (°Wh-in-situ).
EXAMPLE: sentence (i) can either mean that there is a particular girl that
I want to kiss or that I want to kiss any girl. In semantics, this ambiguity can be
captured by associating the sentence with the two logical forms (ii)a and b. In syntax,
the sentence is represented at the level of LF as in (iii)a and b. In both analyses the
ambiguity is taken to be one of °scope of the
°Quantifier relative to the
°modal verb: either a girl has
scope over want, or want has scope over a girl.
(i) I want to kiss a girl
(ii) a there is an x, x=a girl, such that I want to kiss x
b I want there to be an x, x=a girl, such that I kiss x
(iii) a [ a girli [I want [ PRO to kiss ti ]]]
b [ I want [ a girli [ PRO to kiss ti ]]]
Logical implication
°Implication.
Logical semantics
SEMANTICS: The study of meaning in formal and natural languages using
°logic as an instrument. Formal and logical
languages are both seen as sets of sentences of which the
°truth conditions have to be specified
relative to a °model, an abstract representation
of the world. This means that logical semantics can be described as truth-conditional
semantics and model-theoretic semantics.
°Montague Grammar is the most detailed
example of a semantic theory for natural language based on the principles of logical
semantics.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Logophoricity
SYNTAX: phenomenon of coreferentiality that is not covered by the
°Binding theory. Compare (i) and (ii):
(i) * Billi told us that Elisabeth had invited himselfi (ii) Billi told us that Elisabeth had invited Charles and himselfiIn (i) himself cannot be bound by Bill (due to °Condition A of the Binding theory). But in (ii) himself can be coreferential with Bill in (apparent) violation of Condition A. The co-referentiality of (ii) is considered one of logophoricity.
Loop
MORPHOLOGY: a device first introduced into the theory of
°Lexical Morphology by Mohanan (1986).
This device opens the possibility to return to °level
or stratum n-1 after the application of the word formation rules of level/stratum n.
EXAMPLE: Kiparsky (1982)
argues that compounding in English takes place at
level 2, while regular inflection such as plural formation takes place at level 3.
As a consequence, we should never find regular plurals inside compounds. However, we
do find such cases (parks commissioner, systems analyst). Mohanan (1986)
accounts for this by introducing a loop between the compound level and the inflection
level. First, the word park undergoes pluralization, then the form
parks returns to the compound level and the compound parks commissioner
is formed. The introduction of the loop is a serious weakening of the
°Level Ordering Hypothesis, and
(not surprisingly) many linguists
(e.g. Halle & Vergnaud (1987))
regard the loop as an admission that level ordering is not the right way to tackle
the problem of morpheme ordering.
LIT.
Mohanan (1986),
Halle & Mohanan (1985).
Low
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which characterizes
sounds that are produced by lowering the body of the tongue from neutral position.
EXAMPLE: in English [a] is [+low].
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Halle & Clements (1983).
L-related
SYNTAX: a position in an (X-bar) structure is L-related if it is in
a local relation to an °L-feature, i.e.
in the °internal domain or
°checking domain of a head with an
L-feature. Those L-related positions in a checking domain which are adjoined
positions are called 'broadly L-related'; L-related specifier-positions are
'narrowly L-related'. The latter are basically
°A-positions, the former
°A-bar positions.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).