<b>Syntactic nuts:</b> Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. By Peter W. Culicover Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. viii, 244. Paper £16.99.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition by Peter W. Culicover Asya Pereltsvaig Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. By Peter W. Culicover. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. viii, 244. Paper £16.99. This book sheds new light on the place of linguistic theory within cognitive science by investigating the architecture of the language faculty. In particular, it [End Page 404] explores what the properties of language reveal about the mental abilities and processes involved in language acquisition. The originality of this book is that it goes against the prevailing trend in generative grammar by considering not only what is general, exceptionless, and universal in language but also what is irregular, exceptional, and idiosyncratic, both in the lexicon and in syntax. In the first chapter, Culicover discusses the relationship between the study of the learning mechanism for language and the investigation of the properties of language itself as bounding conditions on such a mechanism. He argues that in addition to accounting for linguistic universals, linguistic theory should be able to accept that natural languages are ‘more than simply realizations of combinations of fixed sets of universal properties’ (1). Thus, he focuses on the acquisition of properties that a particular language does not share with other languages. Another question brought up in the first chapter is that of biology vs. learning, namely of how much of linguistic knowledge is biologically determined and how much is learned. Going against the general position, C argues that this question is an empirical one rather than a matter of dogma or ideology. In the last section of the introductory chapter, C identifies two important global properties that a language learner must have: conservatism, which precludes him from generalizing significantly beyond the evidence that is presented to him, and attentiveness, which makes him form generalizations based on all and only the evidence presented to him. The rest of the book is organized into three chapters that deal with categories, constructions, and constraints, respectively. The first of these chapters presents empirical evidence to support the claim that there is in principle an unbounded set of syntactic categories in natural language. C investigates elements that seem to belong to more than one traditional syntactic category, including either, the prepositional complementizer for, various determiners and quantifiers, and odd prepositions. He argues that such elements form separate categories. On the other hand, their apparent patterning with one or the other of the traditional syntactic categories may be explained from their conceptual structure properties rather than syntactic categorization. In Ch. 3, C considers a range of syntactic constructions that possess a certain degree of idiosyncrasy, including reduction constructions (e.g. sluicing), movement constructions (e.g. partial wh-movement), and inflections (e.g. do-support). He argues that even though these constructions might normally be taken as part of ‘core’ grammar, some of these aspects cannot be derived from universal principles and therefore must be determined by the learner on the basis of positive experience. In Ch. 4, C explores some of the consequences of taking the learner to be a conservative attentive learner. He applies the Hawkins Metric to develop a preliminary account of which generalizations are more accessible to the learner on the basis of positive evidence. The goal of this chapter is to provide an understanding of how a learner can acquire constructions that appear to be exceptions to ‘universal’ constraints. Even though the book is mainly concerned with English, other languages, such as Italian, Icelandic, Hungarian, and French, are discussed as well. Asya Pereltsvaig McGill University Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".