The Modular Architecture of Grammar by Jerrold M. Sadock (review)

The Modular Architecture of Grammar presents a state-of-the-art introduction to automodular grammar, a theory based on Fodor’s (1983) modularity of mind hypothesis. According to the Modularity of Grammar Hypothesis, autonomous modules generate linguistic representations (e.g., sentence structures, propositions), but do not interact (p. 7). The representations that these systems generate, however, are connected via mapping principles governed by the interface (meta-) module. The theoretical consequences of this assumption are far-reaching. For instance, the theory lacks movement operations or hierarchical levels of representation, and syntax does not have a central function in the architecture (cf. GB and Distributed Morphology: Chomsky 1981, Halle and Marantz 1993). The theory is tested against a wide range of data, including some well-known but still controversial problems. It presents an interesting representational alternative to derivational theories, and can provide several stimulating points of reflection for theoretically inclined linguists. Below, I summarize the contents of the book.

Chapter 1, “Autonomous modularity: syntax and semantics”, introduces the two central modules of this architecture: semantics and syntax. The semantic module generates Function/Argument (FA) structures, which determine how the meanings of lexical items, phrases and sentences are composed. The syntax module generates phrase/sentence structure, as standardly assumed in generative frameworks. The syntactic rules of representation come in a standard, if conservative generative format (e.g., S→NP, VP). The semantic rules also come in a conservative, categorial format. For instance, an object of type F_ap is a function that takes an argument object of type a as an input, and returns a type p proposition as a result (Cresswell 1973). Lexical items are initially defined as pairings of F/A and syntactic representations, which include information about category and distribution. For instance, the intransitive verb sneeze has F/A type F_a and syntactic category “Vin[_vp ___]” (i.e., it is a verb in a VP).

Chapter 2, “The interface”, presents the interface module and its three core principles. The first is lexical correspondence: each lexical item must have a representation in each module/dimension. The second is categorial correspondence: categories from different modules are mapped in a homogenous way (e.g., NPs to arguments, propositions to sentences). The third is geometric correspondence: a relation from one dimension (e.g., c-command in syntax) must correspond to a relation in another dimension (e.g., scope in semantics). Since the theory assumes that different rules generate syntactic and semantic representations, which are connected via precise mappings, it predicts that discrepancies and asymmetries among representations can arise. For instance, copular sentences such as Sally is a carpenter are analysed as including lexical correspondence discrepancies, which emerge when lexical items (is, a) have syntactic representations, but null semantic representations. The interface module maps the contentful NPs in this sentence to, respectively, argument and predicate type representations, and the copula and indefinite article to null representations. Hence, lexical and categorial correspondence is maintained even if not all syntactic representations correspond to non-null semantic representations. Other types of discrepancies can emerge as well (e.g., lexical items with a semantic but no syntactic representation).

Chapter 3, “Role structure”, adds the Role (also event, cognitive) structure module (RS), which determines the event structure and thematic roles associated to lexical items and sentences. Only three roles are postulated: proto-agent, proto-patient, and ancillary participant (Dowty 1991). Thus, the role structure of a verb such as put can be represented as “RS: ‘put’ (type), AGT, PAT, ANC”. Notably, unlike syntactic structures, role structures are assumed to be non-hierarchical sequences including event type and roles. The assumption that there is a distinct role structure module is motivated via the analysis of voice phenomena and relations among the role structures of verbs. For instance, passive and active sentences are analysed as involving subject NPs that have an argument (semantic) type, but distinct role values (agent for active sentences, patient for passive ones). Antonym verb pairs such as buy and sell...