JUICIO DE AMPARO EN MATERIA FISCAL

Jackendoff’s (2002: 125) tripartite model of language is intended to break down the borders that exist between the different schools of linguistics, and between linguistic, cognitive and psychological research. In this sense, Jackendoff’s work has become a

“unifying starting point” (Ritter 2005: 121), taking the findings of the different academic fields and using them for an “interdisciplinary cross-fertilization” (Poeppel and Embick 2005: 103). The Parallel Architecture assumes a monolingual view of language, but it can be usefully extended to bi- and multi-lingual architectures, as did Francis with his tripartite architecture (2004) or Sharwood Smith (2007) and Sharwood Smith and Truscott (2006, 2008) with MOGUL.

Jackendoff turns away from the syntacto-centric view of mainstream generative grammar (e.g. Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981) and combines its findings and those of empirical studies with the findings of Cognitive Linguistics (e.g. Fauconnier and Turner 2006, Geeraerts 2006, Lakoff 1993, Langacker 1987) or neurolinguistics (e.g. Cabeza and Nyberg 1997, Cappa and Parami 2006, Cheney and Seyfarth 2005, Dronkers 2001, Dronkers et al. 2004). The outcome is the Parallel Architecture or the Tripartite Language Model, which posits neither syntax nor semantics as the dominant structures of language, but rather takes a position “between these two extremes” (Jackendoff 2010: 4).

Additionally, the model takes up the findings of phonological research of the 1970s that underline that the phonological structures cannot be derived from syntax (e.g. papers in

Bell and Hooper 1978, Ingram 1974: 50 ff., Shattuck-Hufnagel 1979: 338). As a consequence, semantics, syntax and phonology are seen as independent generative components in language. Fig 2.1 visualises the model.

Fig. 2.1 The Parallel Architecture; after Jackendoff (2002/2010: 125/3)

In this model, the phonological structure is responsible for speech sounds and has four subcomponents: the segmental structure, which describes the string of phonemes; the syllabic structure; the prosodic structure, which deals with intonational phrases and the stress pattern; and the morphophonological structure, which groups the speech into words.

The syntactic structure processes the sentence in phrases, which are made up of word forms (e.g. N, A, P) and syntactic features (e.g. 3^rd person singular). The conceptual structure (or semantic structure) encodes meaning mentally (Moss, Tyler and Taylor 2007:

219); it is “the form (or one of the forms) in which human thought is couched” (Jackendoff 2010: 7). The conceptual structure is understood to be language-independent. It functions as an area which interrelates language with long-term memory, reception, etc.

In contrast to the syntacto-centric approach (e.g. Chomsky 1957, 1965), the Parallel Architecture does not propose that one of the structures dominates the processes of the others. Rather, each structure works on the same level: each consists of its own primitives, its own set of formation rules, its own internal hierarchies and its own rules of combination (Jackendoff 2002: 149, 2006: 5, Pinker and Jackendoff 2005: 204). All of the structures are interrelated via interfaces. These interfaces are always two-way: the interface between phonology and syntax sends information from the phonological to the syntactic structure and vice versa. When doing this, the interfaces transfer only that information which is relevant for the structure to be addressed. For example, in terms of syntax, it is irrelevant whether a statement such as “He is a clever man” is meant to be ironic or not, since this does not influence the syntax of the sentence. The semantic structure conveys the intended

notion of irony directly to the phonological structure, which must apply the formation rules for ironic prosody and thus realises the intended message. In reception, this process works the other way round. The phonological structure analyses whether the sentence has ironic prosody and gives this information directly to the semantic structure, enabling it to understand the expression correctly (Levelt 1989: 105). All of these processes work in parallel. When an utterance is heard, the hearer starts to analyse the expression with the first sound heard, trying to make out the intended meaning as soon as possible. This may be mirrored in the utterance itself: people often start to speak before they have finished planning the complete sentence or even the whole phrase (Brown and Craik 2000: 100, Marantz 2005, Myachykov, Tomlin and Posner 2005: 357).

In addition to language-internal interfaces, there are interfaces to non-language faculties (Ferreira 2005: 366, Jackendoff 2002: 130, 2007: 87). Phonological structure is related to hearing for the reception of phonological information, and to vocalization for the realisation of phonological concepts. Conceptual structure is related to perception and action, enabling us to speak and think about what we see and to perform actions that are appropriate to the utterance, e.g. shaking hands when greeting each other, or waving when saying good-bye, etc. Additionally, it has access to knowledge which is stored in the long-term memory, as well as to background information and rules regarding the appropriateness of the registers with which words are labelled. In the academic context, for example, the conceptual structure would be able to determine that the usage of a term such as stuff for “objects” or “items” would be inappropriate (Jackendoff 2002: 418, Levelt 1999: 92, Schneider 2010: 21).

2.1.1 The role of the lexicon in the Parallel Architecture

One of the crucial interfaces between phonological, syntactic, and conceptual structures is the lexicon, where each entry is a “small-scale interface rule” (Jackendoff 2010: 15):

A word is thought of not as a passive unit to be pushed around in a derivation, but as a part of the interface components. It is a long-term memory linkage of a piece of phonology, a piece of syntax, and a piece of semantics, stipulating that these three pieces can be correlated as part of a well-formed sentence. (17)

The lexicon contains “feature values of functional categories, in addition to more prototypical lexical items” (Sharwood Smith and Truscott 2006: 209). That is, it does not only store words, but also morphemes, exceptional and idiosyncratic parts of the language, clichés and fixed expressions. Meaningful constructions such as sound+motion VPs (e.g.

The girl sang around the corner) are part of the lexicon as well (Jackendoff 2002: 392,

2007: 69). Just like the language as a whole, each lexical item has a tripartite architecture.

The sound+motion VP sing, for example, would be presented as follows (see also Jackendoff 2010: 18):

Phonology: s ɪ ŋ Syntax: [VP V₁]

Semantics: [GO ([Thing x], [Path y]2); WHILE [PRODUCE-SOUND1 ([Thing x])]]

With this structure, the lexicon architecture can explain many lexical phenomena; regular VPs have the same structure as idiomatic VPs and sound+motion VPs: [VP V (NP) (PP)], and so this VP structure can be seen as a lexical item consisting of syntactic variables.

Peter Culicover’s syntactic nuts (1999: 45 ff., 2009: 31 ff.) can also be formalized as lexical entries:

• The more you drink, the worse you sing.

• How about a piece of pizza.

• One more whiskey and I’m dancing.

• hour after hour

When building words, the speaker makes use of productive and semiproductive rules.

Productive rules are applied in the case of completely regular word building, e.g. the generation of the adverb form of an adjective by adding -ly to the word root. In cases where no regular word building is allowed, the productive rules are blocked, and the irregular forms are supplanted (e.g. good -> [goodly=blocked] ->well). Jackendoff (2002:

155) posits that the regular forms are not stored in the long-term memory, but are constructed online using the rules that are stored in the respective linguistic structure. The affix -ly, for example, is seen as working like a relative clause that is added to a noun: “it is just another case of free combinatoriality” (Jackendoff 2007: 62). Outputs of semiproductive rules are stored in long-term memory. Here, “lexical rules” that work in the lexicon apply. “Such a rule expresses a generalization in the relationship among pairs of lexical entries” (Jackendoff 2002: 159). In a process of unification, the items stored in long-term memory are taken and composed into larger units in the working memory. The generated unit contains all the common features of the units put together, but also preserves their distinct features.

Since the lexicon is a “multidimensional continuum of stored structures”

(Jackendoff 2009: 108) with words in one corner and general rules in another, a clean dual mechanism of lexicon and grammar is not presumed (Francis 2008a: 188/189).

[T]he function of lexical items is to serve as interface rules, and the lexicon as a whole is to

items is not that they are “inserted” into syntactic derivations, but rather that they establish the correspondence of certain syntactic constituents with phonological and conceptual structures. (Jackendoff 2002: 131. Emphasis in the original.)

This lexicalized grammatical pattern supplants the traditional grammatical rules. A phrase structure rule is nothing else than “a lexical item with variables in it; free combination is achieved by attaching further structure to the variables…[P]hrase-structure l-rules…are sitting in the lexicon, available for other lexical items to inherit properties from them”

(Jackendoff 2002: 186). The grammatical rules are learned in the same way as words, since both are lexical items and have the same formal character. The UG’s role in this concept is reduced to giving the language learner the tools to extract generalisations out of the material they perceive.

2.1.2 Simpler syntax

Another way in which Jackendoff and Culicover (Culicover 2005: 245, Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 6, Jackendoff 2002: 80, 2010: 3–4) challenge the generative approach in which syntactic structure dictates the constituency of phrase and sentence meaning (Carnap 1934: 1–4, Frege 1892: 32/33) is in offering a distinct version of syntax: in their view, it is not the generative mechanism, but functions as “an intermediate stage in the mapping between meaning and sound” (Jackendoff 2010: 20). It fulfills the task of bringing the complex network of conceptual structure into the linear order of phonological structure (Schoenemann 1999: 309). In doing this, only those structures are delivered via the interface to the other structure that are relevant for production or perception in this structure. For example, conceptual material is indifferent to syntactic structure, whereas grammatical gender or case features are indifferent to conceptual structure.

For Simpler Syntax, the complexity of syntactic structure involves the extent to which constituents contain subconstituents, and the extent to which there is invisible structure.

Thus, the structure of A in (ia) is simpler than in (ib) or (ic), where β is an invisible element. SS will choose (ib) or (ic) only if there is empirical motivation for the more-complex structure.

(i) a. [A B C D]

b. [A B [^α C D]]

c. [A B [α β C D]]

(Culicover and Jackendoff 2006: 414)

There are almost no empty nodes in simpler syntax. Elliptical configurations, for example, are taken as lexical items. The interpretation is triggered by the conceptual structure of the context, not by an underlying syntactic structure. A sentence such as I met him one day, but I can’t remember when is understandable to the listener, as they can generate the meaning

of when as ‘the day when I met him’ from the first clause. Similarly, sound+motion constructions, cases of coercion (The burger ordered a coke), etc. have no syntactic reflex.

Although syntax is seen as ‘simpler’, it is still not evaluated as being simple, since its structures are quite complex (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: xiv, 2006: 414). Still, in their approach, Culicover and Jackendoff succeed in closing the gap between the knowledge of language and the use of language as supported by findings in the study of aphasia (e.g. Baynes and Gazzaniga 2005, Aichert and Kiermeier 2005).

Thus the Parallel Architecture generates a model consisting of three independent components that are interrelated via specified interfaces. As will be shown below, it also offers a method of generating bi- und multi-lingual models and of explaining phenomena which occur in FL writing.