Internal Merge: Why Does It Work This Way? A Matrix Syntactic Approach to Argument Chain
- 1 Department of English and International Cultural Studies, Momoyama Gakuin (St. Andrew’s) University, Osaka, Japan
Abstract
The computational processes of natural human language (C HL ) form a physical object. The first axiom of matrix syntax (MS), which investigates linguistic structures on the complex plane using quantum mechanics-based mathematical tools, converts the [±N] and [±V] values of the Chomsky matrix to [±1] and [± i ]. This study analyzes the potential developments of this axiom, which has been used previously for raising examples and to describe the grammaticality algebraically. Matrix calculations were performed on elaborate geometries of grammatical and ungrammatical raising examples. Standard analysis based on the minimal computation (MC) principle of the minimalist program (MP) is on the correct track, but it can be combined with mathematical analysis to answer a fundamental question: Why does the internal merge create argument chains (A-chains) in this way, and not in other logically possible ways? With the context-sensitivity hypothesis in MP, MS provides a new perspective on A-chains. Results indicate that a chain-forming geometry contains three areas with distinct growth factors: 1) occurrences (i.e., syntactic contexts of chain members) with a constant rate; 2) backbone-structure building with an exponential rate (i.e., larger φ ~ 1.618), and 3) superposed chain-member copies with a diminishing rate (i.e., little φ ~ -0.618 or σ 1 = 0.7071). The MP-MS collaboration is a viable approach to the structure-building dynamics of C HL and approaches linguistic physics.
- Arikawa, K. (2019). Graph Theory Teaches Us Something about Grammaticality. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 112, 55-82. https://doi.org/10.2478/pralin-2019-0002
- Arikawa, K. (2020). Frustrated Nonphases as Catalysts for Phases—How Graph Theory Calculates Optimal Balance in Linguistic Fibonacci Trees and Graphs. Journal of Cognitive Science, 21, 253-348.
- Bošković, Ž. (2013). Phases beyond Clauses. In L. Schuürcks, A. Giannakidou, & U. Etxeberria (Eds.), The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond (pp. 75-128). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.75
- Bošković, Ž. (2014). Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 27-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148
- Brunton, S. (2020). Singular Value Decomposition (SVD): Overview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXbThCXjZFM
- Carnie, A., & Medeiros, D. (2005). Tree Maximization and the Extended Projection Principle. Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 51-55.
- Chomsky, N. (1974). The Amherst Lectures. Unpublished Lecture Notes Distributed by Documents Linguistiques.
- Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.
- Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT press.
- Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). MIT Press. First Published in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, 1998.
- Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (2005). Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655
- Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 506-569). Mouton de Gruyter. (Reprinted in N. Chomsky (1995). The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28), 13-127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506