Speaker：Prof. Hsin-I Hsieh University of Hawaii
Topic：Interface versus Interaction: Embedding a Cognitive Grammar in a Formal Grammar
Abstract：
Cognitive grammar can shine considerable light on formal grammar, especially Generative Grammar, now in its Interface Theory version (Berwick and Chomsky 2016), by an interaction (Her 1997) with it. Through this interaction, ethnic or cultural values promote the diversification of languages. As Wang (1965) has keenly pointed out, the two negative particles or morphemes, bu ‘will not’ 不 and mei ‘have not’ 没, have mutually exclusive distributions. Consider (1):
1. a. John will not come to school tomorrow.
a’. Yuehan mingtian bu lai xuexiao. 约翰明天不来学校.
b. John did not come to school yesterday.
b’. Yuehan zuotian mei lai xuexiao. 约翰昨天没来学校.
So in English ‘T: Past’ does not get mingled with not, but in Chinese ‘Asp: perfective aspect le 了’ combines with bu 不. How do we explain this and related differences? Consider (2):
2 a. John bought the wrong book.
a’. John bought a/the book by mistake.
b. Yuehan mai cuo le shu. ‘John bought the wrong book.’
约翰买错了书
The mistake is placed next to book in 2a, but next to 买 in 2b. One explanation would be to postulate a higher-order predicate Mistake, as a complement to the V’:< buy, books>, or V’=<买，书>, resulting in <Mistake, <buy, books>V’>V’. This Mistake moves in two ways into the V’. In English, it moves to book to be its modifying adjective, but in Chinese, it moves to buy to be its modifying adverb. Notice that 2a’ doesn’t have the same meaning as 2a. 2a is about two books, one intended for purchase and one actually purchased, but 2a’ is about only one purchased book. There is one mistake. In 2a since book is the affected patient, the mistake seems to be attributed to book, but in 2b since Yuehan is the affecting agent, the mistake seems to be attributed to Yuehan. If an event, the agent or patient could be selected to receive a characterization. Such a difference is likely motivated by ethnic or cultural values.
On the basis of (1) and (2), along with Tai (1985) Principle of Temporal Sequence, we conclude: In Chomsky’s Interface Theory, the I-language could diversify more broadly than one would expect from the P&P schema. Cultural values may inject into the I-language during its diversification by UG. With foresight, Wang (1999) has suggested that there is an indigenous Chinese grammar, motivated by Chinese culture, which a formal grammar based mainly on English cannot adequately describe. This paper is yet another attempt to support Wang’s thesis.
Time: 12:30-14:00 Thu. June. 2, 2016
Location: Room 340314, Ji-Tao Building
