Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
9 - The Warped Forge
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
In this paper we argue that categorization is module independent. Following Uriagereka (1996) we argue that concepts are categorized according to a implicational hierarchy in a scale of structural complexity, expressed in dimensions. Categorization has consequences internal to each module. Concepts exhibit a behavior specific to its category: mass vs. count concepts, for instance, differ in its syntax, but also in the way we interact with them (planning) or in the way we see them. This procedure serves as a base for a porous modular concepticon of our cognition, a kind of bare-phrase structure solution for cognitive interfaces. Furthermore, in this paper we argue against Distributional Morphology for grammatical categories. We show that at least for non derived words cognitive categorization determines the grammatical category of lexical items.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 182 - 191Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthetic Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron Cohen, S., Leslie, Alan M., and Frith, Uta. 1985. “Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’?” Cognition 21: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, Robert C., and Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bustos, Pablo, Manso, Luis, Bandera, J. P., Romero-Garcés, Adrián, Calderita, Luis, Marfil, Rebeca and Bandera, Antonio. 2015. “A unified internal representation of the outer world for social robotics,” in Reis, L. P., Moreira, A. P., Lima, P. U., Montano, L., and Muñoz-Martínez, V. (eds.), ROBOTS 2015: Second Iberian Robotics Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 733–744.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. “The morpheme: a theoretical introduction.” Ms., University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. “Architecture and blocking.” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1: 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1992. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations,” in Hale and Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–110.Google Scholar
Harnard, Stevan. 2005. “To cognize is to categorize: cognition is categorization,” in Cohen, Henri, and Lefebvre, Claire (eds.), Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 20–42.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Joseph. 2015. The Secret of Our Success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2007. “The object agreement constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 2: 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2013. “Object clitics, agreement, and dialectal variation.” Probus 25, 2: 301–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. “Warps: some thoughts on categorization.” Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gasset 4: 1–38.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple spell out,” in Epstein, S. D., and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–282.Google Scholar