Online research in philosophy

The article deals with surdotiflopedagogika, a doctrine of special education for deaf–blind–mute children as it was developed in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. In the spirit of social constructivism of the early Stalinist society, surdotiflopedagogika presents itself as a technology for the manufacture of socially useful human beings out of handicapped children with sight and hearing impairments, “half-animals, half-plants”. Surdotiflopedagogika’s institutionalization and rationale as these were evolving under the special patronage of Maxim Gorkij are analysed. Its experimental aspect is also discussed. Exploring and implementing the most advanced ideas in the technology of communication, surdotiflopedagogika sought to compensate for the loss of speech, hearing, and sight by supplying the child with mechanical and human prostheses, including other people (assistants), technical devices, techniques of the body, and multiple communication codes to be translated from one into another. In the case of Soviet deaf-blind education, the Soviet subject appears as a technologically enhanced, collectively shared, and extended body in a permanent process of translation, internal as well as external. Technologies of language and acculturation that are of particular interest. Surdotiflopedagogika’s method as it appears in the theoretical writing of Ivan Afanasjevič Sokoljanskij (1889–1960), the teacher of the legendary deaf-blind author and educator Ol’ga Ivanovna Skorokhodova (1914?–1982) are given particular attention.

Pulvermüller's Hebbian model implies that an impairment in the word form system will affect phonological articulation and phonological comprehension, because there is only a single representation. Clinical evidence from patients with word-form deafness demonstrates a dissociation between input and output phonologies. These data suggest that auditory comprehension and articulatory production depend on discrete phonological representations localized in different cortical networks.

The basic premise of the Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff 1997, 2002) is that phonology, syntax, and semantics are independent generative components in language, each with its own primitives and principles of combination. The theory builds on insights about linguistic structure that emerged in the 1970s. First, phonology was demonstrated to have highly articulated structure that cannot be derived directly from syntax: structured units such as syllables and prosodic constituents do not correspond one-to-one with syntactic units. Moreover, phonological structure includes several independent substructures or tiers, each with its own type of generative structure: segmental-syllabic structure, the metrical grid, intonation contour, and (in tone languages) the tone tier. The tiers are correlated with each other by interface rules: principles that establish optimal correspondence between structures of two independent types. Such rules are not derivational. Since these phonological structures cannot be derived from syntactic structures, the connection between syntax and phonology must also be mediated not by derivations, but by a component of interface rules.

This commentary discusses the division of labor between syntax and phonology, starting with the parallel model of grammar developed by Jackendoff. It is proposed that linear, left-to-right order of linguistic items is not represented in syntax, but in phonology. Syntax concerns the abstract relations of categories alone. All components of grammar contribute to linear order, by means of the interface rules.

Some of the most salient differences among Arabic vernaculars have to do with syllable structure. This study focuses on the syllabification patterns of three dialect groups, (1) VC-dialects, (2) C-dialects, and (3) CV-dialects,1 and argues that they differ in the licencing of SEMISYLLA- BLES, moras unaffiliated with syllables and adjoined to higher prosodic constituents. The analysis provides some evidence for a constraint-based version of Lexical Phonology, which treats word phonology and sentence phonology as distinct constraint systems which interact in serial fashion.

This paper argues that “covert” operations like Quantifier Raising (QR) can precede “overt” operations. Specifically we argue that there are overt operations that must take the output of QR as their input. If this argument is successful there are two interesting consequences for the theory of grammar. First, there cannot be a “covert” (i.e. post-spellout) component of the grammar. That is, what distinguishes operations that affect phonology from those that do not cannot be an arbitrary point in the derivation (“spellout”) before which the former apply and after which the latter do; all syntactic operations apply in the same component (henceforth ‘single component grammar’). Second, there must be some alternative means for distinguishing “overt” from “covert” operations. One such alternative, which we can call the ‘phonological theory of QR’, was suggested by Bobaljik (1995), Pesetsky (1998), Groat and O’Neil (1994). These authors proposed that the distinguishing property has to do with principles of the syntax-phonology interface. Assume that movement is a copying operation with phonology targeting one copy in a chain for pronunciation. The distinction between “overt” and “covert” movement, these authors suggest, is this: “overt” movements are the result of phonology targeting the head of a chain for..

Our proposal is concerned with the relation between an aspect of phonology (linearization) and syntax.1 In the picture that we had in mind, the syntax is autonomous — "it does what it does" — but sometimes the result maps to an unusable phonological representation. In this sense, linearization acts logically as a filter on derivations. We know of no evidence that the syntax can predict which syntactic objects will be usable by the phonology, and we know of no clear evidence that the phonology communicates this information to the syntax. In this sense, our proposal fits squarely into the tradition that Svenonius characterizes as the "mainstream".2 We thus attempted to identify certain deviant configurations that are not plausibly excluded for syntax-internal reasons, but are filtered out in the linearization process.

Evolutionary Phonology. Evolutionary Phonology seeks to derive typological generalizations from recurrent patterns of language change, themselves assumed to be rooted in perception, production, and acquisition. The goal is to eliminate UG by providing diachronic explanations for the cross-linguistic evidence that has been used to motivate it. (2) shows a schema of this program, where the arrows can be read as “explains” and/or “constrains”.

This book investigates the nature of the relationship between phonology and syntax and proposes a theory of Minimal Indirect Reference that solves many classic problems relating to the topic. Seidl shows that all variation across languages in phonological domain size is due to syntactic differences and a single domain parameter specific to phonology.

In Stratal OT, morphology and phonology are stratified and interleaved, as in traditional Lexical Phonology (Mohanan 1986), but the strata (Stem, Word, Postlexical) are characterized by systems of parallel constraints. The output of each morphological operation is submitted to the phonological constraints on its stratum: stems must satisfy the stem phonology, words must satisfy the word phonology, and Phrase must satisfy the phrasal phonology.1 For example, an affix which is added to stems to form words would enter into the derivation in the following fashion.