Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity

This article presents a perspective on syntactic cyclicity in minimalism that is compatible with fundamental ideas in construction–grammar approaches. In particular, I outline the minimalist approach to syntactic structure building and highlight that units of potentially any phrasal size can be atom...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andreas Trotzke
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152/full
id doaj-6c8b2947265c486db04d0482ff9eca79
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6c8b2947265c486db04d0482ff9eca792020-11-25T03:33:38ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782020-09-011110.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152554869Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on CyclicityAndreas Trotzke0Andreas Trotzke1Department of Linguistics, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, GermanyCenter for Theoretical Linguistics, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainThis article presents a perspective on syntactic cyclicity in minimalism that is compatible with fundamental ideas in construction–grammar approaches. In particular, I outline the minimalist approach to syntactic structure building and highlight that units of potentially any phrasal size can be atomic items in the syntactic derivation, showing that the opposition between simplex linguistic items (“words”) and more complex ones (“phrases”) in minimalism is in principle as artificial as in many construction–grammar approaches. Based on this perspective on structure building, I focus on the empirical domain of subextraction patterns out of complex subjects, adjuncts, and complements, and I demonstrate that the acceptability patterns in this domain can be explained by a functional approach to syntactic cyclicity: Unacceptable patterns are ruled out not for configurational (and hence syntactic) reasons, but rather they systematically follow from infelicitous interpretations at the syntax–discourse interface. This raises the question of whether syntactic cyclicity is (at least in part) motivated by performance (read: “language-in-use”) constraints, which I consider another area for fruitful interaction between construction–grammar and usage-based accounts on the one hand and minimalism on the other hand.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152/fullconstructioncyclicityderivationdiscourseminimalismopacity
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andreas Trotzke
Andreas Trotzke
spellingShingle Andreas Trotzke
Andreas Trotzke
Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
Frontiers in Psychology
construction
cyclicity
derivation
discourse
minimalism
opacity
author_facet Andreas Trotzke
Andreas Trotzke
author_sort Andreas Trotzke
title Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
title_short Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
title_full Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
title_fullStr Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
title_full_unstemmed Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity
title_sort constructions in minimalism: a functional perspective on cyclicity
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2020-09-01
description This article presents a perspective on syntactic cyclicity in minimalism that is compatible with fundamental ideas in construction–grammar approaches. In particular, I outline the minimalist approach to syntactic structure building and highlight that units of potentially any phrasal size can be atomic items in the syntactic derivation, showing that the opposition between simplex linguistic items (“words”) and more complex ones (“phrases”) in minimalism is in principle as artificial as in many construction–grammar approaches. Based on this perspective on structure building, I focus on the empirical domain of subextraction patterns out of complex subjects, adjuncts, and complements, and I demonstrate that the acceptability patterns in this domain can be explained by a functional approach to syntactic cyclicity: Unacceptable patterns are ruled out not for configurational (and hence syntactic) reasons, but rather they systematically follow from infelicitous interpretations at the syntax–discourse interface. This raises the question of whether syntactic cyclicity is (at least in part) motivated by performance (read: “language-in-use”) constraints, which I consider another area for fruitful interaction between construction–grammar and usage-based accounts on the one hand and minimalism on the other hand.
topic construction
cyclicity
derivation
discourse
minimalism
opacity
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152/full
work_keys_str_mv AT andreastrotzke constructionsinminimalismafunctionalperspectiveoncyclicity
AT andreastrotzke constructionsinminimalismafunctionalperspectiveoncyclicity
_version_ 1724562550680453120