LINGUIST List 19.2780
|
Fri Sep 12 2008
Disc: Review of 'Chomsky's Minimalism'
Editor for this issue: Catherine Adams
<catherin linguistlist.org>
|
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Lise
Menn,
Review of 'Chomsky's Minimalism'
Message 1: Review of 'Chomsky's Minimalism'
|
Date: 10-Sep-2008
From: Lise Menn <lise.menn colorado.edu>
Subject: Review of 'Chomsky's Minimalism'
E-mail this message to a friend
Discuss this message
I remind my colleagues who are hotly discussing the on-line issue of whether thinking comes before speaking that there are several decades of empirical psycholinguistic work on this topic, e.g. by Merrill Garrett, Willem Levelt, Kay Bock, and their colleagues, showing that there is a very intricate on-line interaction between syntactic and semantic aspects of a sentence as pre-verbal messages get encoded. Bock, for example, has shown that some aspects of syntax are primed without respect to meaning, while Levelt & colleagues (as well as others) have shown that the information to be encoded affects the syntactic form chosen. These findings are not contradictory, but complementary, as the researchers themselves fully agree: it depends on what aspect of sentence production one is looking at. A little googling will introduce you to this area of research, much of which is written clearly enough so that you don't have to be a working psycholinguist to understand it. Try reading the Bock & Levelt chapter in Gernsbacher's 1994 Handbook of Psycholinguistics, for a start. Arguments about what takes place in real time and real brains cannot be decided by logical and linguistic methods alone, because the data used by 'pure' linguistics just don't deal with activities in real time.
Linguistic Field(s):
Linguistic Theories
Syntax
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|

Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|