장바구니 담기 close

장바구니에 상품을 담았습니다.

장바구니로 계속쇼핑하기
신 최소주의 이론 비결정론(A New Minimalist Theory Non-determinism)
미리보기

신 최소주의 이론 비결정론(A New Minimalist Theory Non-determinism)

  • 양동휘
  • |
  • 한국문화사
  • |
  • 2015-09-20 출간
  • |
  • 190페이지
  • |
  • 152 X 225 X 20 mm
  • |
  • ISBN 9788968172854
판매가

20,000원

즉시할인가

19,800 원

배송비

2,300원

(제주/도서산간 배송 추가비용:3,000원)

추가상품
상품선택
독서대 7,900원 독서대 선택안함 0원
수량
+ -
총주문금액
19,800원
장바구니 구매하기

※ 스프링제본 상품은 반품/교환/환불이 불가능하므로 신중하게 선택하여 주시기 바랍니다.

북스크린영상으로 만나보는 한 권의 책 이야기

출판사서평

A New Minimalist Theory: Non-determinism(신 최소주의 이론: 비결정론)

이 저서는 미국 MIT의 Chomsky교수의 소위 최소주의 이론(Minimalist Program, 1995)을 더욱 발전시킨 새로운 언어학 이론을 모색한다. 특히, 원래의 최소주의 이론보다 더욱 최소주의적인 언어학 이론을 제시한다. 다시 말하면, 이 저서에서 새롭게 제시하는 소위 비결정론(Non-determinism)은 Chomsky교수의 최소주의 이론에서 결정론적(deterministic) 요인들을 가능한 한 제거한 비결정론적 이론이다. 따라서, 비결정론(Non-determinism)은 종래 최소주의 이론에서 분명히 결정론적(deterministic) 요소인 주변 자질 (edge feature)의 개념을 완전 제거하고 그 대신 영가설(null hypothesis)의 문을 열어 놓는다. 다시 말하면, 영가설 이론의 도입은 종래 최소주의 이론에서 주변 자질을 완전 제거하는 비결정론적 이론의 출발점이 된다. 따라서, 앞으로 소위 최소주의 이론은 비결정론적 이론으로 발전되어 갈 것이다. 비결정론적 이론의 또 하나의 특성은 파탄(crash)의 개념의 재정립이다. 최소주의 이론을 포함하여 종래의 모든 생성문법론에서 비문법적 문장은 파탄의 개념으로 규명되었었다. 즉, 모든 문장은 문법적이거나 비문법적인 문장으로 구분되고, 문법이란 문법적인 문장만을 구분해내는 결정론적 규칙들의 집합으로 간주되어 왔다. 따라서 모든 비문법적인 문장은 그 도출이 파탄나 있다고 보았다. 그러나 비결정론에서는 모든 도출의 파탄 여부뿐 아니라 그 (비)문법성의 성격까지 해석부(interpretive system)에서 평가된다고 본다. 따라서, 비결정론에서는 통사부(syntax)보다 해석부의 역할이 더 크게 부각된다.

[본문 발췌]

Part 1 / The Grammar of Non-determinism

1. Introduction

Chomsky’s (1995, 2000, 2001, 2008) theory of movement is mainly based on determinism in the sense that a derivation is determined by feature-checking under the last resort condition along with the notion of crash. An alternative theory of movement would be based on non- determinism in the sense that a derivation is not determined by feature-checking under the last resort condition along with the notion of crash but accounted for in terms of various interpretive systems along with the notion of Merge (Chomsky 2008). In fact, various attempts for non-determinism have been proposed even within the deterministic frameworks. For example, even if Chomsky (2008) basically maintains the deterministic basis of feature-checking for the theory of movement especially for A-movements, he tries to adopt a non-deterministic approach for some A’-movements without much success within his deterministic framework. This monograph shows that systematic non- determinism based on interpretive systems along with the proper notion of Merge is better motivated than an entirely or partially deterministic theory of movement.
Another major claim of this monograph is that the notion of edge feature (EF) posited in Chomsky’s (2008) theory of determinism should be eliminated for the theory of non-determinism. It is proposed in this monograph that the operation of Merge, unmarked or marked, should be the derivational null hypothesis in the sense that it is always free and optional (or costless) not only for the unmarked Merge but also for the marked Merge, given the usual assumption that all the derived structures undergo interpretation at the interface for the degree or kinds of grammaticality. The postulation of EF for every lexical item (LI) is the basic mechanism of Chomsky’s theory of determinism. Hence, every Merge should be licensed or “determined” by the EF of an LI, which makes his theory inherently deterministic. Since I propose the notion of derivational null hypothesis in place of the notion of EF for my non- determinism, the notion of EF is unnecessary, given the notion of derivational null hypothesis. Implications of non-determinism beyond movement or a possible theory of global non-determinism are discussed.
This monograph proposes that Chomsky’s (1995, 2000, 2001, 2008) theory of movement, which is mainly based on determinism (1), should be replaced by a theory of movement based on non-determinism (2) as suggested in Yang (2011b):

(1) A derivation is determined by feature-checking under the last resort condition along with the notion of crash. (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2008 [80%])

(2) A derivation is not determined by feature-checking under the last resort condition along with the notion of crash but accounted for in terms of the architectural conditions of Merge, i.e., Merge types (EM/IM) and interpretive systems of Merge. (Chomsky 2008 [20%], Yang 2011b [100%])

I will show that notions like the last resort condition and crash should be better eliminated, supporting non-determinism (2), given the interpretive systems of non-determinism. Note that the last resort condition is not necessary for optional movements like Scrambling in languages like Japanese, Korean, etc., while their interpretive effects can be ascertained by the interpretive systems as required by non-determinism. It will be shown below that even for obligatory movements the last resort condition is not necessary, given the Merge types and interpretive systems of non- determinism (2). The notion of crash may also be better covered by the interpretive systems, which are to deal with degrees or types of (un)grammaticality or (un)acceptability within non-determinism. Hence, the postulation of the notion of crash is not only unnecessary within non-determinism but also against the spirit of non-determinism.
The core notion of non-determinism (2) consists of Merge and the interpretive system for it. Hence, strictly speaking, non-determinism (2) is not a theory of movement but a theory of Merge. And the theory of movement should follow from the theory of Merge according to non- determinism (2). In other words, according to non-determinism (2), the theory of movement should be based on the theory of Merge, so that the Merge theory of movement according to non-determinism (2) is better motivated than the traditional theory of movement per se according to determinism (1).
In fact, the notion of Merge has been deterministically introduced. For example, Chomsky (2008) proposes (3), which provides the deterministic characterization of Merge:

(3) Every lexical item (LI) has an edge feature (EF) characterizing the propensity of LIs for being Merged with other elements (LIs).

According to (3), Merge is supposed to operate freely but along with the deterministic notion of EF. In other words, every operation of Merge should be licensed or “determined” by an EF according to (3). However, there is another possibility of characterizing the notion of Merge non- deterministically without positing the notion of EF, as in (4):

(4) Every lexical item (LI) Merges with other elements (LIs), given the usual assumption that every derived structure undergoes interpretation at the interface.

Note that every wrongly Merged structure will be filtered out by the general principles of interpretation at the interface. In fact, (4) conforms with the derivational null hypothesis in the sense that the derivational operation of Merge may be free and costless. Note that null hypothesis indicates a situation where certain properties of the grammatical system “come for free” ? that is, do not require stipulation, given the basis parameters for what the grammar is supposed to do. I mean the derivational null hypothesis to be a null hypothesis with respect to a derivation: within a derivation, an operation may “come for free” if all the relevant operations are free and costless.
Hence, the notion of EF may be eliminated under the derivational null hypothesis within non-determinism, simplifying the minimalist theory. In fact, the notion of EF is peculiar even for or in Chomsky’s (2008) grammatical system since EF is not a feature for checking or semantic interpretation. Furthermore, it is assumed in Chomsky (2008) that EF inherently is assigned to every LI and has to be automatically deleted as soon as its Merging function is found to be no longer necessary. Obviously, the complicated conditions related to EF will disappear when EF is eliminated.
Further problems with the EF theory are as follows. It is difficult to characterize even the distinction of the so-called unmarked and marked Merge in terms of the EF theory. Note that the unmarked Merge is optional Merge whereas the marked Merge is obligatory Merge. And under the derivational null hypothesis along with (4), I may assume that Merge, unmarked or marked, is obtained simply by (4), the distinction between unmarked and marked Merge being made by the lexical specification to the effect that only the Merging head of the marked Merge is assigned the feature [+marked], which makes the Merging function of the Merging head obligatory. In other words, only the assignment of the feature [+marked] on the Merging head of the marked Merge will make the distinction of the unmarked and marked Merge under the derivational null hypothesis along with (4). But the EF theory has to carry the additional burden of dealing with the EF in accounting for the distinction of unmarked and marked Merge, as follows. According to Chomsky (2008), it is maintained that when the Merge is unmarked or optional the EF of the Merging head may not be always deleted, or optionally deleted, whereas when the Merge is marked or obligatory the EF of the Merging head should never be deleted. Note that EF is necessary for every Merge.
A similar situation obtains in accounting for other phenomena involving the unmarked and marked distinction as in (5):

(5) The unmarked Merge is the norm while the marked Merge is rather exceptional across languages.

Again we may assume the derivational null hypothesis along with (4) to account for phenomena like (5) in the sense that the unmarked Merge is most common since it is purely due to the derivational null hypothesis, whereas the marked Merge is rather exceptional since it involves a marked Merging head with [+marked] in addition.
In fact, the EF theory is no longer crucially involved in further development of the Merge theory as we see in (6):

(6) EM yields generalized argument structure (theta roles, the “cartographic” hierarchies, and similar properties); and IM yields discourse-related properties such as old information and specificity, along with scopal effect. (Chomsky 2008)

Here we see that the theory of Merge should be developed into either the theory of external Merge (EM) with respect to the generalized argument structure or the theory of internal Merge (IM) with respect to the discourse-related properties. Neither of these properties of EM and IM crucially involve the EF theory. For both of the theories of EM and IM, Chomsky (2008) proposes the principle (7):

(7) Every Merge induces a (new) interpretation. (Chomsky 2008)

Indeed, with (7) we may begin to develop the theory of EM and IM as follows. According to (7), every Merge induces an effect on the argument structure for EM or an effect on the discourse-related properties for IM. In fact, I claim that the system of discourse-related properties for IM is the so-called system of interpretive effects, which I claim would replace the minimalist movement theory (1) discussed earlier.
I propose (8a, b) as the exhaustive list of interpretive effects of IM for the theory of Merge/movement under the non-determinism (2):

(8) a. Discourse Effects: (a) topic, (b) focus, (c) givenness, (d) null effect
b. Semantic Effect: (e) scope

Among the five interpretive effects listed in (8a, b), the null effect (d), as induced by Subject-Raising in English, is the only interpretive effect realized only at PF whereas all the other interpretive effects may be realized at LF as well as PF. In other words, the null effect is manifested only phonologically without any semantic effects. Furthermore, it is due to the marked Merge only, whereas all the other interpretive effects are not. The marked Merge induces a marked interpretive effect, behaving as an obligatory process, whereas the unmarked Merge induces an unmarked interpretive effect, behaving as an optional process. We may conclude that the null effect is the marked interpretive effect that is realized only at PF, which is rare across languages. Note that the null effect is characterized within the Merge theory but without involving the notion of EF.
In English the expletive undergoes the obligatory Subject-Raising and I claim that it induces the null effect according to the exhaustive list of interpretive effects (8a, b) within non-determinism. Hence, we can account for why an expletive undergoes only the obligatory movement of Subject-Raising in English and I claim that the expletive is subject to the PF interpretive effect only according to my theory of interpretive effects.
Given that the interpretation applies phase by phase (Chomsky 2008), we can account for the interpretive effects of a phase according to (9) under the assumption that a trace does not carry phonological information:

(9) Phonological and semantic interpretations should go hand in hand.

Note that usually within a phase the final link of a successive-cyclic Merge/movement will carry the phonological and semantic interpretations including semantic interpretive effects according to (9). (9) will also account for cases of covert Merge/movement and why QR(Quantifier Raising), a covert movement, should be local. (9) will also account for the theta effect on the initial link under the assumption that an overt element like a resumptive pronoun is possible at the initial link.
I have claimed earlier that the derivational null hypothesis along with (4) accounts for phenomena like (5) in the sense that the unmarked Merge is most common since it is purely due to the derivational null hypothesis, whereas the marked Merge is rather exceptional since it involves a marked Merging head with [+marked]:

(5) The unmarked Merge is the norm while the marked Merge is rather exceptional across languages.

The derivational null hypothesis inherently implies the free and optional operation, as discussed earlier. Hence, the non-determinism essentially based on the derivational null hypothesis can be considered roughly as a “free and optional” system. And Chomsky (2001) makes a claim (10) to the effect that the notion of interpretive effect that is considered as an essential part of the non-deterministic grammar as discussed above is of the inherent property of the optional operation:

(10) Optional operations can apply only if they have an effect on outcome (Chomsky 2001).

(10) implies that optional operations should induce the interpretive effect whereas obligatory operations do not necessarily do so, which conforms with our discussion above in the sense that the marked Merge (obligatory operation) may induce the PF interpretive effect only. I propose that we may rephrase (5) as (11):

(11) The optional operation is the norm while the obligatory operation is rather exceptional across languages.

Chomsky (2008) partially adopts non-determinism for some A’- movements, as opposed to Yang (2011b), which fully adopts non- determinism. Chomsky might be simply assuming that pure non- determinism is too idealistic in the sense that at least some phenomena in natural language are apparently “deterministic” like A-movements in English, as argued in Chomsky (2008). But Chomsky’s (2008) “partial” non-deterministic theory of grammar is losing the significant insights of non-determinism (2). First of all, his theory never captures the fact that his fragmentary non-deterministic phenomena of A’-movements should not be “exceptional”, but due to the regular systematic contrast of the marked vs. unmarked Merge, as claimed in non-determinism (2). Secondly, his theory never captures the fact that his “exceptional” fragmentary non-deterministic phenomena of A’-movement represent the unmarked Merge, which should be the “norm” across languages, whereas his major deterministic phenomena of A-movements represent the marked Merge, which should be “exceptional” across languages. Hence, Chomsky’s (2008) “partial” non-deterministic theory of grammar is seriously misleading: it never represents the true picture of the unmarked vs. marked distinction in natural language. Non-determinism (2) is not a theory restricted to movement. It can and should be extended beyond movement. It will be discussed how non-determinism is to be extended beyond movement. This monograph will be the basis for the extension of the non-determinism beyond movement.

목차

▣ Preface
▣ Acknowledgments

Part 1/ The Grammar of Non-determinism
1. Introduction
2. Determinism, Non-determinism, and Derivational Null Hypothesis
3. Unmarked vs. Marked Merge
4. Interpretive Effects
4.1. Identification of Interpretive Effects
4.2. Variability of Interpretive Effects
4.3. Interpretive Effects Across Movement Types
5. Architectural Conditions
6. Successive-cyclic Movements
7. Covert Movements
8. Reconstruction
9. Global Non-determinism

Part 2/ Global Non-determinism
Part 2-1 Global Non-determinism for Merge
1. Determinism, Non-determinism, and Global Non-determinism
2. The Null Hypothesis for Merge
3. The Interpretive Theory of Merge
4. The Minimal Theory of Merge: Unmarked vs. Marked
5. Interpretation at Interface
6. Non-uniqueness of Interpretive Effects
7. Non-head-driven Interpretive Effects
8. PF Interpretive Effects
9. Conclusion: Grammar of Global Non-determinism

Part 2-2 The Global Nature of the Interpretive Effects of Merge
1. Introduction
2. The Global Characterization of Interpretive Effects
2.1. LF-PF Interpretive Effect
2.2. PF-only Interpretive Effect
2.3. LF-only Interpretive Effect
2.4. Functional Aspects of Interpretive Effect
2.5. The Universal Exhaustive List of Interpretive Effects
2.6. The Null Hypothesis of Merge in Terms of the Interpretive Effect
3. Identification of Interpretive Effects
4. Variability of Interpretive Effects
5. Interpretive Effects Across Merge Types
6. Concluding Remarks

Part 3/ Non-determinism and Null Hypothesis
Part 3-1 Derivational Null Hypothesis
1. Introduction
2. Determinism vs. Non-determinism
3. Edge Feature
4. Marked vs. Unmarked Merge
5. Interpretive Effects
6. Chomsky’s (2008) Dilemma
7. A Resolution
8. Derivational Null Hypothesis for Non-determinism
9. Concluding Remarks
10. Postscript for the Extension of Non-determinism: Affect-α

Part 3-2 Null Hypothesis in Generative Grammar
1. Introduction
2. Edge Feature vs. Null Hypothesis
3. The Exhaustive List of Interpretive Effects and Strategies for Null Hypothesis
4. Null Hypothesis only due to Unmarked Merge
5. Derivational Null Hypothesis
6. Null Hypothesis and Non-determinism
7. Concluding Remarks

▣ References
▣ Index

저자소개

저자 양동휘는
학력: 서울대학교 졸업 (학사, 석사)
미국 Hawaii 대학교 졸업(석사)
미국 Indiana 대학교 졸업 (박사)

경력: 이화여자대학교 외국어교육과 부교수
서울대학교 영어영문학과 교수

주요 저서
『한국어의 대용화』. 한국연구원. 1988.
『지배-결속 이론의 기초』. 신아사. 1989.
『수정 문법론』. 한국문화사. 1995.
『최소이론의 전망』. 한국문화사. 1996.
『최소주의 가설』. 한국문화사. 2003.

도서소개

이 책은 미국 MIT의 Chomsky교수의 소위 최소주의 이론(Minimalist Program, 1995)을 더욱 발전시킨 새로운 언어학 이론을 모색한다. 특히, 원래의 최소주의 이론보다 더욱 최소주의적인 언어학 이론을 제시한다.
추천포스트

교환 및 환불안내

도서교환 및 환불
  • ㆍ배송기간은 평일 기준 1~3일 정도 소요됩니다.(스프링 분철은 1일 정도 시간이 더 소요됩니다.)
  • ㆍ상품불량 및 오배송등의 이유로 반품하실 경우, 반품배송비는 무료입니다.
  • ㆍ고객님의 변심에 의한 반품,환불,교환시 택배비는 본인 부담입니다.
  • ㆍ상담원과의 상담없이 교환 및 반품으로 반송된 물품은 책임지지 않습니다.
  • ㆍ이미 발송된 상품의 취소 및 반품, 교환요청시 배송비가 발생할 수 있습니다.
  • ㆍ반품신청시 반송된 상품의 수령후 환불처리됩니다.(카드사 사정에 따라 카드취소는 시일이 3~5일이 소요될 수 있습니다.)
  • ㆍ주문하신 상품의 반품,교환은 상품수령일로 부터 7일이내에 신청하실 수 있습니다.
  • ㆍ상품이 훼손된 경우 반품 및 교환,환불이 불가능합니다.
  • ㆍ반품/교환시 고객님 귀책사유로 인해 수거가 지연될 경우에는 반품이 제한될 수 있습니다.
  • ㆍ스프링제본 상품은 교환 및 환불이 불가능 합니다.
  • ㆍ군부대(사서함) 및 해외배송은 불가능합니다.
  • ㆍ오후 3시 이후 상담원과 통화되지 않은 취소건에 대해서는 고객 반품비용이 발생할 수 있습니다.
반품안내
  • 마이페이지 > 나의상담 > 1 : 1 문의하기 게시판 또는 고객센터 1800-7327
교환/반품주소
  • 경기도 파주시 문발로 211 1층 / (주)북채널 / 전화 : 1800-7327
  • 택배안내 : CJ대한통운(1588-1255)
  • 고객님 변심으로 인한 교환 또는 반품시 왕복 배송비 5,000원을 부담하셔야 하며, 제품 불량 또는 오 배송시에는 전액을 당사에서부담 합니다.