Robert Fiengo

The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English 1973

In the following investigation we will consider the syntactic behavior and semantic interpretation of reciprocal sentences. We will demonstrate that if the semantic interpretation of reciprocal sentences is effected by means of a cyclic interpretive rule, apparent irregularities can be explained. We will also provide both semantic and syntactic arguments that the analysis of reciprocals proposed by Dougherty (1970) is incorrect.

The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences

Abstract It is argued that childrens knowledge of the structure of multiple clause sentences and the rules governing control of missing complement subjects (PRO) can be described in terms of four grammar types which constitute separate developmental stages. These grammar types are believed to develop following an initial stage when children rely on a strategy to interpret multiple clause sentences. In order to test this hypothesis, 64 children ranging from 3;2 to 8;3 years of age were interviewed on four separate occassions. During the first interview a spontaneous language sample was collected and a Developmental Sentence Score (DSS), a measure of grammatical development, was obtained for each child. During the second and third interviews each child was askedto act out a total of 45 complex sentences. Fifty of the children returned for a fourth interview which included an acting out task and a judgment task. The five stages were associated, a priori, with specific patterns of control and the children were classified according to either grammar type or use of the initial strategy on the basis of their response patterns to a selected set of the 45 experimental constructions. The hypothesis of the four grammar types and their sequential development was supported by the fact that the children belonging to each grammar type differed significantly with respect to age and DSS scores. Furthermore, all the means were sequentially ordered in the predicted direction. Tests involving the relationship of grammar type to (1) reliability of response patterns across interviews, and (2) ability to identify semantically deviant sentences provided independent support for the theory of the four grammar types. There was only limited support for the existence of the initial stage.

On How to Use -Wa

The distribution of the particle -wa in Japanese sentences depends to a very significant extent on which speech act those sentences are used to perform. In an Austinian theory of assertive speech acts, four types of assertive speech act are distinguished. It is argued here that the dimensions along which the structures of these speech acts vary are the dimensions that serve to explain the presence of -wa. Furthermore, the various uses of -wa that have been identified in the literature, including the thematic and contrastive uses, are brought under a unified system. There are, however, two more general themes that are addressed here. First, it is claimed that, once a principled theory of speech acts is in play, the relative contributions of syntax and semantics to the study of natural language become more easy to distinguish. This provides an antidote to the tendency to syntacticize problems that are properly pragmatic (or pragmaticize problems that are properly syntactic, etc.). The attempt is made to separate these domains without favor. The other theme involves Austins account of predication in terms of matching types of items and senses of predicates. That proposal, which stands in contrast to common assumptions in the semantics literature, and which is central to his account of assertive speech acts, deserves attention.

Some Issues in the Theory of Transformations

The specification of formal criteria 1 delimiting the class of possible transformations is of fundamental importance in linguistic theory. Ceteris paribus, if the notion transformation is narrowly defined, the class of possible grammars is thereby reduced. By restricting the class of grammars in empirically justifiable ways, we approach an explanation for the ability of human beings to acquire language. Postal (1975) argues that the theoretical framework we were assuming2 in Lasnik and Fiengo (1974) imposes overly restrictive formal criteria. Since such an argument implies that the class of possible grammars must be increased, the burden of proof clearly rests on its proponent. We maintain that Postal has failed in this task.

Response to Edwin William's Review of Indices and Identity

Our response to Edwin Williamss review of our book Indices and Identity (II before there can be meaningful debate it must be clear to both participants what the issues are. In I&I, our concern is with the nature and representation of syntactic identity. The central issue we address is a foundational one: to determine the conditions under which two syntactic inscriptions are occurrences of the same syntactic object. Any answer to this question will have implications for a broad range of topics, including, we argue, for the theory of anaphora. It is a central consequence of our approach to syntactic identity that if two syntactic representations, or inscriptions, have the same index, they are thereby indicated to be occurrences of the same syntactic expression. If two syntactic inscriptions do not have the same index, they are thereby indicated to be occurrences of different syntactic expressions. Since the identity conditions given are SYNTACTIC identity conditions, it is to be expected that two inscriptions might be syntactically identical but lexically distinct. This circumstance holds when, for example, an occurrence of Cicero and an occurrence of he have the same index. We refer to the relationship between syntactically identical but lexically distinct inscriptions as VEHICLE CHANGE. This relation is not arbitrary, and a good part of I&I is devoted to investigating the constraints on Vehicle Change. (See especially the discussion on pp. 218-27 and 275-88.) We will consider this relationship in more detail below. Our conception in I&I raises a question as to the relationship between the indication of syntactic identity and the theory of anaphora. What we hold on this point is that the representation of syntactic identity, expressed as a theory of indexing, is sufficient to express the syntactic relation of anaphora: expressions that have the same index are syntactically indicated to be anaphoric. The intuition behind this is easy to grasp: if an expression is repeated, it follows that the two occurrences have the same semantic value, in the cases at hand, its reference. If two inscriptions are coindexed, and hence repetitions in the appropriate sense, they are coreferential. On the other hand, if two inscriptions are not coindexed, whether they are coreferential or not depends on the structure of context, formally defined. The initial chapters of I&I formally develop the syntax and semantics of our treatment of anaphora, at the heart of which lies the intuition mentioned, and the theory is applied to a variety of empirical puzzles.

Complement Object Deletion 1974

There can be little doubt that there exists a process in English which deletes objects in sentences such as (1). We will call such processes Object Deletion (OD).1