________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-451. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 210 Subject: 3.451 Queries: presupposition, dialect, idioms, etc. Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 16:22:05 MEZ From: Uwe Hauck Subject: Presuppositions and NL-Generation 2) Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 19:01:00 +0200 From: Robin Clark Subject: American Dialect Question 3) Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 12:02 EST From: TRUESDA@prism.clemson.edu Subject: Query: Rate of Speech 4) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 13:32:08 -0400 From: gb661@csc.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) Subject: scanners 5) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 07:22:34 EDT From: Alexis_Manaster_Ramer@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu Subject: Query: Idioms 6) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 17:21:46 CDT From: andy@tivoli.com Subject: Inquiry 7) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 15:39 PDT From: HSLAPOLLA@ccvax.as.edu.tw Subject: French causatives 8) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 16:36:32 +0100 From: Dr M Sebba Subject: Query: relative clauses, Arabic -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- [Reminder: We'd like to remind readers that the responses to certain kinds of queries (lists, bibliographies, etymologies, etc.) are best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. Of course, so much depends on the specific query that we can only ask readers to use their own judgment. But this policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems feasible. Thanks, Anthony & Helen] ______________________________________________ 1) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 16:22:05 MEZ From: Uwe Hauck Subject: Presuppositions and NL-Generation The above Subject is the exact title of a paper I am actually working on in which I am trying to establish a new theory about the role of presuppositions in the context of Generation for multiple audiences. I am searching for literature about Presuppositions and the way we recognize and handle them, expecially about the effects of presuppositions in dialog.... Thanx a lot for any hints in advance Uwehauck at dosuni1.bitnet uwehauck at dosuni1.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 19:01:00 +0200 From: Robin Clark Subject: American Dialect Question There is, according to rumor, a dialect of American English where the following is acceptable as a conditional: (1) she were an ice cream I would eat her. We would like to hear from any speakers of this dialect. In particular, a colleague was wondering whether the string in (2) is acceptable as a conditional: (2) I would eat her she were an ice cream. Send replies to: clark@uni2a.unige.ch Merci buckets! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 12:02 EST From: TRUESDA@prism.clemson.edu Subject: Query: Rate of Speech I'm passing the following query along from a colleague not on the list: "According to Bill Bryson in THE MOTHER TONGUE (Wm. Morrow Co., 1990), 'In normal conversation [English speakers] speak at a rate of about 300 syllables a minute' (p. 90). My question is, how does this rate compare to Spanish, French, Chinese, etc.? Is the average rate of speech about the same across languages? Have there been any comparative studies? --Skip Eisiminger" My comment to Skip re this query was: It seems the info usually given out in undergrad linguistics classes is that rates of speech are about the same across languages, although we may *perceive* certain languages as "faster"--e.g. Spanish, since its intonation patterns make it sound staccato or "machine-gun-like" to some English speakers. But I join Skip in this query: Could someone point to major comparative studies on rate(s) of speech. A personal reply would be fine; I'll post a summary if there is interest. Thanks! --Vance Truesdale, Clemson U. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 13:32:08 -0400 From: gb661@csc.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) Subject: scanners Our university recently acquired a scanner, and in using it I found that it needed to know what language it was scanning (the only possibilities were some European lgs -- English, Spanish, French, German, Finnish). I would like to scan texts in other, less familiar, languages. Can someone more technologically literate tell me whether there are scanners on the market that can scan text without knowing what language it is in? ****************************************************************************** Aaron Broadwell, Dept. of Linguistics, University at Albany -- SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 gb661@thor.albany.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 07:22:34 EDT From: Alexis_Manaster_Ramer@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu Subject: Query: Idioms Does anyone have a bibliography or reading list on idioms? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 17:21:46 CDT From: andy@tivoli.com Subject: Inquiry An Inquiry on Speech Synthesis Can anyone point me in the right direction to find out what kinds of hardware and software are currently available for converting softcopy ascii English text to some sort of auditory output ? What I'm after is putting together a system which would allow the visually impaired to have access to hardcopy text, preferably PC, Mac, or workstation-based. I have a reasonable idea of how to get from hardcopy text to softcopy text via scanning (although any suggestions there are welcome as well), but I'm too far removed from current work on softcopy to auditory output to have a clue where to start. Perhaps Vicki F., Peter L. or other phoneticians can point me in the right direction. I will be happy to post a summary for whoever is interested. Andy Rogers TIVOLI Systems 3706 Robinson Ave. 6034 W. Courtyard Drive, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78722 Austin, Texas 78730 512 476 4257 Vox: 512 794 9070 Fax: 512 794 0623 andy@tivoli.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 15:39 PDT From: HSLAPOLLA@ccvax.as.edu.tw Subject: French causatives I have a quick question for experts on the history of French (and other Romance) grammar: Was there ever a time in the development of the 'faire + V' causative (and similar forms in Spanish and Italian) when the causee appeared between the two verbs instead of after them in a dative or other prepositional phrase? (I.e., was it ever like the laisser + V construction?) Thanks. Randy LaPolla Institute of History & Philology Academia Sinica hslapolla@twnas886.bitnet hslapolla@ccvax.as.tw -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 16:36:32 +0100 From: Dr M Sebba Subject: Query: relative clauses, Arabic For a student who is writing on relative clauses in Arabic, I am looking for references on nonrestrictive relative clauses (in general, not confined to Arabic) and on relative clauses of all types in Arabic. The student is an Arabic native speaker. I would be grateful for any suggestions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-451. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-452. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 152 Subject: 3.452 Query: X-bar and VP Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 13:07:23 MDT From: mnu@inel.gov (Rick Morneau) Subject: X-Bar Theory and the Verb Phrase -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 13:07:23 MDT From: mnu@inel.gov (Rick Morneau) Subject: X-Bar Theory and the Verb Phrase I'm currently reading "On the Definition of Word" by Anna-Maria DiSciullo and Edwin Williams (MIT Press, 1987) and I'm running into some problems. Although it was certainly not the authors' intent, the book raises difficult questions (for ME, at least) about X-Bar Theory and the validity of the Verb Phrase (VP). I'm hoping that someone on Linguist List can help. In one part of the book, the authors discuss the formation of compounds - how some arguments (i.e., theta roles) are projected from the head word of a compound to the resulting compound, and how an argument of the head can be satisfied by the non-head. They use X-bar theory to explain their conclusions. The claims they make that are relevant to my confusion are: 1. The non-head word of a compound can satisfy only the INTERNAL argument of the head word - it can NOT fill the EXTERNAL argument. 2. Only the external argument of the head word (but NOT the internal argument) can become an argument of the resulting compound. In other words, the internal argument of the head word can be filled by the non-head word, and the external argument of the head word can become the argument of the resulting compound. They use the following examples to illustrate their points: destruction story *It was boy-slept. John bar tends. *tree-eating of pasta Unfortunately, I did not find their examples very illuminating, so I came up with a few of my own that illustrate what they say CAN be done: land-grabbing tycoons house-hunting newlyweds beer-drinking buddies Note that the external argument of the head word becomes an argument of the whole compound, while the internal argument of the head word is filled by the non-head word, as the authors claim. They justify these conclusions using X-Bar Theory (page 31), stating that: "[A non-head] cannot satisfy the external argument, because that argument must pass its index up the X-bar projection to the maximal projection, and satisfying the external argument within the maximal projection would lead to a contradiction: the maximal projection would bear an index indicating that it contained an unsatisfied argument, but that argument would in fact be satisfied... [The fact that only the external argument of the head can become part of the argument structure of the resulting compound] follows from the fact that the external argument passes up the X-bar projection, but the argument structure as a whole does not..." It all sounds very reasonable. Unfortunately, it is quite easy to come up with examples which contradict both claims: man-made hill customer-selected colors snake-infested swamp Here, the EXTERNAL argument of the head is satisfied by the non-head, and the INTERNAL argument of the head becomes the argument of the new compound. Thus, it would seem that EITHER argument, internal or external, can be supplied by the head word to the resulting compound. It would also seem that EITHER argument of the head word, internal or external, can be filled by the non-head word. This bothers me because it implies that the distinction between internal and external arguments may not be valid. And yet, this distinction is crucial to many current analyses within Government-Binding Theory. (Actually, what really worries me is that the explanation is SO obvious that I'll be embarrassed when I find out what it is. :-) This whole line of thought reminded me of a directly related problem that has remained buried in the recesses of my brain since I studied Transformational Grammar (TG). It bothered me then, but I never pursued it. Specifically, one of the strongest reasons why a verb phrase is considered a constituent is because it can appear in coordinated structures: John (washed the dishes) and (vacuumed the carpet). This example gives credence to the widely (universally?) accepted assumption that S => NP VP. However, counter-examples come easily to mind: (John washed), (Bill waxed) and (Mike buffed) the floor. (John just left for) and (Bill just arrived from) Boston. Which constituents are being coordinated here? More importantly, is coordination still considered a meaningful test by syntacticians, or is it just a language-dependent form of elision at S-structure? I'm not sure why I didn't pursue this earlier. I think I just assumed that the textbooks were correct about S => NP VP, and that it would all sink into my thick skull eventually. Now, though, DiSciullo and Williams have resurrected my earlier doubts about the validity of VP and the internal/external argument distinction. It also raises the question (in MY mind, at least) of why we must forsake X-Bar theory at the sentence level, when it has proven to be so useful everywhere else. Didn't someone (Ray Jackendoff ???) once try to show that the main verb is the head of a sentence, and that ALL arguments of the head (internal, external and adjunct) are sisters? If so, what ever came of it? Anyway, I apologize if this is old hat for anyone who reads this, but it sure would be nice if someone could straighten me out on this matter. Sincerely befuddled, Rick -- *=*= Disclaimer: The INEL does not speak for me and vice versa =*=* = Rick Morneau Idaho National Engineering Laboratory = * mnu@inel.gov Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415, USA * =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= NeXT Mail accepted here! *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-452. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-453. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 74 Subject: 3.453 Zellig Harris Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Sat, 30 May 92 15:49 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.445 A Tribute to Zellig Harris 2) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 22:37:28 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.445 A Tribute to Zellig Harris -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Sat, 30 May 92 15:49 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.445 A Tribute to Zellig Harris Many thanks to Bruce Nevin for the tribute to Zellig Harris, one of the giants on whose shoulders all linguists of any stature stand. Vicki Fromkin -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 22:37:28 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.445 A Tribute to Zellig Harris I read with great interest Bruce Nevin's eloquent tribute to Zellig Harris and applaud him not only for his unique insights into Harris's character but also for a number of ways in which he is able to set a confused and sometimes misleading record straight. I was myself a student of Harris's for a brief time (1965-67) and insofar as I can judge Bruce's comments against the background of my own experience I would have to say that he presents an absolutely fair and accurate picture of of an extremely unconventional and in someways troubling man. I sometimes found it difficult and frustrating to deal with him, but I derived inspiration from him too. At the risk of appearing defensive, I'd like to suggest that Bruce's summary of my review of Harris's collective writings is unfairly summed up in the question 'Why bother?' But the review is accessible, and anyone interested can come to an independent decision. I will tell one story that I think illustrates very well what kind of a man Harris was. In the summer of 1969 I decided, for a variety of reasons (some having nothing to do with anything academic), to leave the graduate program in linguistics at Penn and finish my Ph.D. elsewhere. I did regularly attend Harris's course that following fall, knowing that this would likely be my last chance to have any sort of personal contact with him. But I did not have a paper ready by the end of that semester and an outstanding item of business during the few months that intervened between my departure from Penn and my arrival at UCLA in March of 1970 was to produce one. This I did, and shortly after getting to Los Angeles I finished it and sent it off. No more than a day or two later -- soon enough so that it was clear that it had crossed my paper in the mail -- I received my last transcript from Penn indicating that I had received an A for the course. It struck me as a very Harrisian thing to do and I would have a bad conscience about it but for one thing: I did write the paper! Michael Kac -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-453. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-454. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 202 Subject: 3.454 Adjectives Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 17:40:05 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: 3.446 Queries: Lists, Adjectives, Comma, Unhappier, Gopnik 2) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 19:37:36 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: 3.446 Unhappier -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 17:40:05 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: 3.446 Queries: Lists, Adjectives, Comma, Unhappier, Gopnik Re: Adjectives Jerry Sadock and I have been wrestling with this issue, and especially the semantic side of it, for some time and he has come up with some interesting thoughts on the semantic end which i hope will be worked out well enough for presentation soon. I have been concentrating on the syntactic end, and in my CLS paper from April (co-authored with Barbara Need) we proposed a significant revision ot X-bar theory which separates predicative adjectives, which are projections of a head A, from pre-nominal modifiers which are not, being an adverbial sort of category N1>>N1 (combine with N-bar to form N-bar. I will not deluge the list with the argumentation, but will happily send copies of the article to those who want it. Applied directly to the question at hand, the point is that the sets of lexical items which can be A[0] or [N1>>N1] are largely overlapping, though not entirely. In some languages, such as those of Southeast Asia, there is no morphological marking to distinguish adjectives from stative verbs, and the NP has the form head_noun - modifier - [numeral+classifier] - demonstrative with the order varying widely among languages. Should the modifier be analyzed as V or A? This is a common question. In my own work, it is neither, but is rather of the category [N1>>N1] when it is internal to the NP, and is a V when predicative, as there are absolutely no tests to suggest that there are two categories (V or A) involved. On the other hand, this assumes that words like 'very' subcategorize on semantic, and not syntactic grounds. When it comes to English, you might want to consider the Autolexical view, which separates syntax from morphology from semantics in the lexicon as well as in grammar. Thus the question of whether something is an adjective gets different answers depending on which of the three perspectives is adopted. I have found that teaching English grammer gets much easier when you look at things this way. Semantic operators in english include 'seem' (a verb), 'likely' (an adjective) and 'probably' (an adverb). Don't blame me! This is just a fact, and trying to map syntactic categories onto semantic categories, as Croft (among others) does, just won't work all of the time. The same problems arise when you try to map morphology onto syntax. Sadock (1991: Autolexical Syntax. University of Chicago Press) is a good introduction to this multi-modular point of view. My 1989 BLS paper (Syntactic Polysemy and Underspecification in the Lexicon) deals with the part of speech problem in Southeast Asian languages. The issues as they pertain to parts of speech are pretty much theory independent and can be implemented in other frameworks which are largely word-driven. Eric Schiller University of Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 19:37:36 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: 3.446 Unhappier Gregory Stump expresses four concerns about my analysis of _unhappier_ in LI 23 (1992:347-352). I think one of those concerns is exactly on target and the other three are less clearly so. 1. Stump's first point questions whether the comparative form of a scalar adjective is itself scalar. I guess it rather depends upon definitions here, but if by `scalar' one means `scalar predicate' in the sense of Horn (1972) or Hirschberg (1991), then surely _unhappier_ is scalar. Certainly it does not occur in the environments 'very ____', 'less ____' or 'as ____ as', but it isn't clear why one should assume that these constitute an exclusive diagnostic set. (Note that `very' fails for clear scalars like `very', so perhaps what is really tested by `very' is gradability rather than scalar-hood. Thanks to Gregory Ward for this and other points.) For what it's worth though, earlier stages of English (as is well-known) did allow constructions like _less_happier_, though what one wants to make of that is unfortunately not clear to me: Or as a moat defensive to a house Against the envy of less happier lands; This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, (Richard II) One other point that I mentioned in the squib, which Stump did not mention, is that _un-_, in its contrary interpretation, has the same meaning as 'the opposite of ____'. Consistent with that, both 'the opposite of happier' and _[un_[happier]]_ (assuming that structure) have the same meaning. 2. Stump's second point involves the observation that in adjectives with inherently comparative meaning (_superior_, _inferior_), _un-_ is interpreted as having contradictory rather than contrary reading, suggesting that the interpretation in the case of the structure _[un_[happier]]_ should by no means be expected to have the contrary reading. So for Sandy wants to find someone uninferior to her at chess. we get the interpretation that Sandy wants to find someone who is (merely) not inferior to her at chess. It is interesting that Stump picked _inferior_ as his example, because I believe that _superior_ displays the opposite behavior. I should point out that I don't find either _uninferior_ or _unsuperior_ to be acceptable on any interpretation (they are just ill-formed for me), but if I had to force an interpretation for Sandy wants to find someone unsuperior to her at chess. I would have to say that it means that Sandy wants to find a weaker player than herself, not that she wants to find a player who is at most as good as herself. If this is right, then this suggests a possible reason for Stump's results other than the conclusion that comparative-sense adjectives are compatible only with the contradictory reading of _un-_. Two properties of _un-_ have been noted in the literature dating back (at least) to Zimmer 1964: i) with scalar adjectives _un-_ typically has a contrary reading; ii) _un-_ tends not to occur with bases that have a negative sense. Zimmer gives a handful of exceptions to the second generalization: _uncorrupt_, _unobnoxious_, _unmalicious_, _unvicious_, _uncruel_ ... Interestingly, although the examples that I have listed here all seem to have (at least potentially) scalar bases, it is by no means clear that in these cases _un-_ is getting the contrary interpretation. That is while I can surely refer to a person as _unkind_ and mean that they are cruel, I don't think that I can felicitously refer to a person as _uncruel_ and by that mean that they are kind. There is presumably some pragmatic basis for this, possibly related to the ultimate reason for the tendency expressed in (ii): conceivably, if you use a negative adjective, you automatically implicate something negative about the thing or person to whom the adjective is applied, and this negative sense cannot be cancelled by the contrary reading of _un-_, hence (following a suggestion of Horn) _un-_ reverts to the weaker contradictory reading. This is not intended to be a well-thought out analysis of the issues (neither do I sense that I am saying anything particularly novel), but I think there is sufficient reason to doubt the significance of Stump's example to the issue he intends to apply it to. 3. Stump's third point is that even when both ADJ and un-ADJ coexist, distinct phonological and semantic structures must be assumed. So, while _uneasier_ must presumably have the phonological structure _[_un_[_easier_]]_ for familiar reasons, its interpretation ('more uneasy' and *not* 'less easy') suggests that it can never have the *semantic* structure _[_un_[_easier_]]. I think Stump is right here. To the list add _unwiser_. 4. Finally Stump points to his recent paper in Language as presenting a framework in which _unhappier_ ceases to be paradoxical. The problem here is not with Stump's assertion that _unhappier_ is no paradox in his framework: this is true. What bothers me is the repetition of the refrain that I have seen now more times than I can remember; namely that bracketing paradoxes cease to be paradoxical if you view them in such and such a way. The point is that, *all* analyses of bracketing paradoxes have presented what seemed to the authors at the time to be well-motivated theories wherein bracketing paradoxes ceased to be such. Indeed, it would be bizarre if things were otherwise, since presumably nobody who treats an apparently paradoxical construction wants to argue that the construction in question remains a paradox in their theory. Bracketing paradoxes ceased to be paradoxical long ago, as soon as it was understood that their solution involved the positing of at least two distinct levels of analysis for words in some sense. The debate ever since has been about what those levels might be in any particular case, not about how to make Bracketing Paradoxes cease to be paradoxical. Richard Sproat Linguistics Research Department AT&T Bell Laboratories tel (908) 582-5296 600 Mountain Avenue, Room 2d-451 fax (908) 582-7308 Murray Hill, NJ 07974 rws@research.att.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-454. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-455. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 80 Subject: 3.455 FYI: publications available Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 15:31:53 EDT From: cphill@Athena.MIT.EDU Subject: Chomsky '92 Paper 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 16:22:11 +0100 From: toussain@irit.fr -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 15:31:53 EDT From: cphill@Athena.MIT.EDU Subject: Chomsky '92 Paper Noam Chomsky's DRAFT of "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory" has been circulating without his permission. The paper is now close to completion, and it will be published by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, as the first in a new series, "MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics". The paper should be available by mid-June, priced $5, (plus postage, US $1, Overseas $1.50 surface, $3 airmail per copy) from: MITWPL 20D-219 MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 MITWPL also distributes over 130 titles in the following series: MIT Linguistics Dissertations (60 available so far) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics Lexicon Project Working Papers Parsing Project Working Papers Center for Cognitive Science Occasional Papers For more information about the Chomsky paper, or for a complete list of titles offered, either write to the above address or send us e-mail at: MITWPL@athena.mit.edu Colin Phillips -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 16:22:11 +0100 From: toussain@irit.fr I received this request from a member of our group in Toulouse,France. (Yannick TOUSSAINT) Could you communicate the forwaded message about the review "Les Cahiers de Grammaire" edited by our group in Toulouse, to the members of linguist network. Sincerely, Michel Aurnague. LES CAHIERS DE GRAMMAIRE "Les Cahiers de Grammaire" is a review edited by the research lab ERSS (Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et Semantique) of the University Toulouse-Le Mirail (France) since 1982. The scope of this publication is general linguistics and more precisely descriptions of both syntactic and semantic phenomenons in French and more generally in Romance languages. If you are interested in ordering some issues of "Les Cahiers de Grammaire" (see below the contents of the last four issues) or in submitting some paper to be published, you can contact J.P. Maurel (address : URA 1033, UFR de Lettres Anciennes, Universite de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 5 allees Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse) or Michel Aurnague (adress : IRIT, 118 route de Narbonne 31062 Toulouse, email : aurnague@irit.fr, fax : 61 55 62 58). The price of each issue including postage is 45 francs. Moreover, (bank or post office) cheques as well as other administrative payments (order forms, etc) have to be made out to : C.E.C. 13, rue Pierre de Coubertin 31520 Ramonville St-Agne. France Cahiers de Grammaire no 13 (Sept. 1988) : A. BORILLO : "Le lexique de l'espace : les noms et les adjectifs de localisation interne; M. CAMPRUBI : "Les prepositions dans le domaine notionnel : la construction prepositionnelle des verbes et des adjectifs en catalan et en espagnol"; S.-H. KIM : "Construction infinitive du verbe causatif de mouvement"; Ch. MOLINIER : "Un cas de relation metonymique dans une structure predicative adverbiale"; M. PLENAT : "Morphologie des adjectifs en -able". Cahiers de Grammaire no 14 (nov. 1989) : M. AURNAGUE : "Categorisation des objets dans le langage : les noms de localisation interne"; P. CADIOT : "La preposition : interpretation par codage et interpretation par inference"; E. KHAZNADAR : "Le masculin premier"; D. LAUR : "Semantique du deplacement a travers une etude de verbes et de prepositions du francais; D. LEEMAN : "Remarques sur les notions de sexe et de genericite"; A.M. ORLANDINI : "La reference verbale en latin". Cahiers de Grammaire no 15 (nov. 1990) : M. CAMPRUBI : "La relation prepositionnelle entre le nom et son complement nominal en espagnol et en catalan"; A. CONDAMINES : "Les conjonctions de subordination temporelles en francais; F. KERLEROUX : "Du mode d'existence de l'infinitif substantive en francais contemporain; C. MULLER : "Les constructions en tel et la subordinationconsecutive"; M. ROCHE : "'Neutre' et pseudo-neutre en francais"; C. VANDELOISE : "Les frontieres entre les prepositions sur et a". Cahiers de Grammaire no 16 (nov. 1991) : M. CAMPRUBI : "Les prepositions dans les complements circonstanciels ou adverbiaux du domaine notionnel en espagnol et en catalan; J. GIRY-SCHNEIDER : "Noms de grandeurs en avoir (No a Det N-Modif) et noms d'unites; C. JACQUEMIN : "Une grammaire d'unification des noms composes controlee par l'acceptabilite; F. LAMBERT : "Observations sur la coordination par et en francais"; N.J. LEFKOWITZ & S.H. WEINBERGER : "Metathese au premier branchement et parametrisation dans les jeux de langage : le cas du verlan"; P. SABLAYROLLES : "Semantique spatio-temporelle du deplacement en francais : analyse et representation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-455. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-456. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 100 Subject: 3.456 Citations, human subjects Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 08:49 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.443 Tone, Relative Markers, Human Subjects 2) Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 2:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: GIVEN@sbchm1.chem.sunysb.edu Subject: 3.433 Chomsky Citation 3) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 09:42 CDT From: TB0EXC1@NIU.bitnet Subject: human subjects -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 08:49 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.443 Tone, Relative Markers, Human Subjects in response to Sue Blackwell as to why, if Chomsky is so prolific, he is not contributing to this discussion -- obviously he can be prolific because he doesn't spend his time like we do reading and answering on the Net. Wonder how many hours we each spend. Vicki Fromkin -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 2:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: GIVEN@sbchm1.chem.sunysb.edu Subject: 3.433 Chomsky Citation It is aesthetically satisfying to note that the two most heavily cited humanist writers from the 20th century are Sigmund Freud and Noam Chomsky - satisfying because these two have basic traits in common: 1.They elaborated structuralism into a methodology for the human sciences 2. They built large, powerful bureaucracies to carry on their work 3. Despite their pretensions as theorists, their successes were as DESCRIPTIVE scientists. Part of Chomsky's legacy to linguistics is the understanding of which questions are UNprofitable to ask. In particular, questions about ``innateness" are empirical questions for developmental psychology and psycholinguistics, NOT questions of transcendental (in the Kantian sense) philosophy - I think people understand that now, BECAUSE of Chomsky. On the other hand, psycholinguistics research seems to tilt at least as much to Piagetian fantasies (words like "interactionism" and "bootstrap" keep occurring) as to those popularized by Chomsky. Isn't this a reasonable summary? What really fascinates me, as a gerontologist of theories, is the question: how stable are the descriptive formalisms of the Masters (Freud or Chomsky). Will GB exist in a recognizable form in 20 years? Anyone willing to lend their crystal ball? Again, an abiding problem for a scholar of either Freud or Chomsky is that detailed discussions of their influence, histories of the development of their ideas, etc., are almost entirely written by Believers. I saw an interesting albeit brief, asessment of NC's influence on psychology, philosophy, etc. in this discussion. What is his net influence on the vast number of NON-theoretical linguists ( citation data is never specific enough to shed any light on that....) ? JA Given SUNY Stony Brook -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 09:42 CDT From: TB0EXC1@NIU.bitnet Subject: human subjects Regarding the comments on human subjects, informed consent, copyrighting of linguistic data (speaker output), the most comprehensive treatment I know of is in the most recent number of the Publications of the American Dialect Society (Number 76), 'Legal and Ethical Issues in Surreptitious Recording.' The volume contains two essays, 'The Legal and Ethical Status of Surreptitious Recording in Dialect Research: Do Human Subjects Guidelines Apply,' by Don Larmouth, and an extended treatment 'On the Legality and Ethics of Surreptitious Recording,' by Thomas E. Murray and Carmin Ross Murray. Both make excellent, pertinent reading for any language researcher. Edward Callary Northern Illinois University -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-456. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-457. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 311 Subject: 3.457 How did we end up linguists, Z. Harris Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:22:41 EDT From: dberkley@astrid.ling.nwu.edu (Debbie Berkley) Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? 2) Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 8:36:58 GMT From: MCCONVELL_P@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU Subject: The linguist bug 3) Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:28:45 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? 4) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 21:22 BST From: ANNA MORPURGO DAVIES Subject: RE: 3.435 Zellig Harris 5) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 10:31:12 EDT From: maxwell@jaars.sil.org Subject: Becoming a linguist 6) Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 15:10 EST From: CL235501@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? 7) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 02:53 MET From: WERTH@alf.let.uva.nl Subject: RE: 3.437 How did we end up linguists? 8) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 12:08:50 EDT From: kaufmann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kean Kaufmann) Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? 9) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 21:42:27 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.437 How did we end up linguists? -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:22:41 EDT From: dberkley@astrid.ling.nwu.edu (Debbie Berkley) Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? Are there many others who, like me, excelled at languages and took as many as they could? But when I got into the higher levels of French, my chosen major, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis on literature. What I loved was playing around with sounds and words: making up languages, trying rearrangements of the sounds in words to see if that made another word, finding out the patterns in language. The introductory linguistics course I took my soph. year at UCLA was a revelation--other people actually like this stuff, too! There's not much that can beat the thrill of discovering that you can actually major in--and then devote your life's work to--something you thought was just a game you had sort of made up. Deborah Milam Berkley -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 8:36:58 GMT From: MCCONVELL_P@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU Subject: The linguist bug For about as long as I can remember - at least since the age of 8 - I have been fascinated with language and languages. At 8 I remember poring over etymological dictionaries and trying to construct Old English sentences in school; longing for the time to come when I could start learning French; having started French being caught by the teacher reading grammars of Caucasian languages in class (at about 12) while he interminably revised material I knew - offering as an excuse the fact that the books I was reading were in French etc. What puzzles me is that my background is absolutely infertile ground for this kind of thing. Strictly monolingual working-class English family; I never even sighted a foreign language speaker until I was 10 or so. Jeff Leer (who was similarly struck down in youth) and I discussed this a couple of years ago when I was visiting Alaska and concluded it must be a virus. Patrick McConvell, Anthropology, Northern Territory University, PO Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:28:45 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? Zvi Gilbert and Margaret Winters both suggest that the desire to do some- thing that combines elements of the sciences and the humanities is part of what leads people to linguistics, and I agree -- not merely because it de- scribes part of my own motivation (a second language learning experience played a role too) but because I have heard others say much the same thing. Example: some years ago when I taught Introduction to Linguistics I was approached after the first class by a young woman from the class who said that she had always done well in both math and English and thought that maybe this field would be interesting for that reason. She ended up majoring here as an undergraduate and then getting a Ph.D. (elsewhere). She has since left the field, though my impression from the last conversation I had with her was that it was disillusionment with academia and not with linguistics that was responsible. Michael Kac -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 21:22 BST From: ANNA MORPURGO DAVIES Subject: RE: 3.435 Zellig Harris After Hellen Prince's announcement noone has written anything about Zellig Harris's death. Probably few people knew him. It is natural to say that with him ends an era. But he was also a man of astonishing intellectual power (that he kept to the end), of very wide and deep culture and of total devotion to his subject. In a period when departments of linguistics may be proposed for closure at a moment's notice, we ought to remember that he founded the first department of linguistics in the United States. Those who (wrongly) see Harris as a man only concerned with narrow formalisms may try to read his 45-page long review of Sapir's Selected Writings (Language 1951) and see how natural it is to apply to him what he said of Sapir: " So refreshing is his freshness and criticalness, that we are brought to a sharp realization of how such writing has disappeared from the scene." Anna Morpurgo Davies -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 10:31:12 EDT From: maxwell@jaars.sil.org Subject: Becoming a linguist I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 27-May-1992 10:30am EDT From: Mike Maxwell MIKE.MAXWELL Dept: Language Center Tel No: 6369 TO: UUCP user linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu ( _linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu) Subject: Becoming a linguist Subject: Becoming a linguist Well, the real reason I took my first semester of linguistics was that I wanted to work in Bible translation, and for that I needed linguistics. At that point I didn't know how to spell "lingrist", three months later I were one. :-) All seriousness aside, before that point I had a general interest in language, but an aversion to learning languages. The structures were interesting, but memorizing the vocabulary was a pain. I had even read a book on linguistics by Mario Pei (which did not, however, make a big impression). But two incidents stand out, both in eighth grade or so. One was when I "discovered" the verb paradigm in Spanish, which in turn made Spanish interesting enough to bring my grade from a "D" to a respectable note. The other was doing sentence diagrams (in English). My English teacher insisted that the major division in the sentence was between the subject and the verb, whereas it was obvious to me that there was an equally major division between the verb and its objects. Twenty years later, my PhD thesis was on that topic (among other things). I hereby publicly confess that Mrs. Shellenbarger was right. Like Vicki Fromkin said, there are probably as many reasons why people become linguists as there are linguists. ******************************************************** Mike Maxwell Phone: (704) 843-6369 JAARS Internet:maxwell@jaars.sil.org Box 248 Waxhaw, NC 28173 ********************************************************  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 15:10 EST From: CL235501@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? I wound up studying linguistics because of an exceptional (if I may praise myself) facility with both English and foreign languages and a monumental incompetence with just about everything else. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 02:53 MET From: WERTH@alf.let.uva.nl Subject: RE: 3.437 How did we end up linguists? What strange things we do find to talk about in the wee small hours (in my case) . ). Does my career choice have explanatory adequacy? I must join what seems on th e e basis of the answers I've read to be the tiny minority of people who were just plain interested in language (in my case, it was etymology first - nothing to do with my present interests). I'm also with the foot in both camps brigade in that I have lit interests as well (and at the moment am a passive member of PALA and the Assoc. of Lit Semantics) - but I must confess that my main interest in lit now is that it gives you such damn good examples. Much better than the usual John & Mary stuff. Greetings ------- Paul Werth q -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Date: Fri, 29 May 92 12:08:50 EDT From: kaufmann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kean Kaufmann) Subject: Re: 3.429 How did we end up linguists? I concur with the foot-in-each-camp account; for me, the camps were poetry and computer programming. My first conscious awareness of language qua language (form as apart from content) came through poetry. Explaining to my hiskool English teacher why I chose linguistics over lit-crit, I used the analogy of the animal-lover who majors in animal behavior rather than biology: "I want to watch them play, not cut them up." Science fiction was also a significant influence, though I'd rather call it 'speculative fiction' and reserve the modifier 'science' for stuff with equations in the appendices. For instance: Samuel R. Delany's incredible novel _Babel-17_, which takes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and runs with it. Has anyone else thought of an undergrad course on "Linguistics through Fiction"? Since so many linguists seem to have gotten a boost from s.f. (whatever you want the initials to stand for), and since there are so many works of s.f. dealing directly or indirectly with linguistics, I'd imagine such a class would be ideal for recruitment purposes. Kean Kaufmann (kaufmann@acsu.buffalo.edu) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Date: Sun, 31 May 92 21:42:27 -0500 From: "Michael Kac" Subject: Re: 3.437 How did we end up linguists? One quick correction to Mark Hansell's attribution to me of the claim that linguists are superior language learners. For the record, what I hypothesized was that it was typical for linguists to have been strongly affected by a second language learning experience. But another observation he makes is, for me at least, very telling, namely his description of the language learning process as dreary and inefficient without shortcuts. Ah yes, exactly. Here's my own story. In the fall of 1955, at the age of twelve, I found myself in a public school in Geneva, Switzerland not knowing a word of French. I had a classic immersion experience, which is a tale in itself, but not the one I wish to tell here. In the second half of the year, we began the arduous process of memorizing the paradigms of the notorious French irregular verbs. This included having to learn the dreaded imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives, despite the fact that these forms were completely obsolete. To the surprise of everyone, I soon be- came one of the best performers on the regularly administered exams in this subject. And it was for precisely the reasons that Hansell mentions: I began to see patterns even among the irregular verbs and the task of learning the paradigms became simplicity itself. Actually, what is truly shocking about this episode was the fact that if *I* could discern these patterns for myself surely they were known to the teacher and the designers of the materials that we used. But no, the whole task was treated as one of rote memorization which one began de novo as each new verb was considered. Which brings me to another possible common characteristic of linguists -- cer- tainly one that I see in a great many of my own friends and colleagues in the field: an inherent rebelliousness and a sense of having a vision that others (especially in the world of education) either can not or will not see. Let's see if we get any takers on that one. Michael Kac -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-457. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-458. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 255 Subject: 3.458 Conferences: ECCAI, Cog Sci, Comparative Germanic Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 11:55:28 +0200 From: ECAI92 Vienna Conference Service Subject: ECCAI 2) Date: Sat, 30 May 92 18:19:35 BST From: Donald Peterson Subject: Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences 3) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 18:34 CDT From: kkrohn@tamuts.tamu.edu (Katherine Elizabeth Krohn ) Subject: Comparative Germanic Syntax: Chomsky -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 11:55:28 +0200 From: ECAI92 Vienna Conference Service Subject: ECCAI ======================================================================= Final Programme - ECAI92 - Final Programme - ECAI92 - Final Programme ======================================================================= 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 92) August 3-7, 1992, Vienna, Austria organized by the European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence (ECCAI) hosted by the Austrian Society for Artificial Intelligence (OGAI) Programme Chairperson Bernd Neumann, University of Hamburg, Germany Local Arrangements Chairperson Werner Horn, Austrian Research Institute for AI, Vienna [Moderators' note: The full program of this conference is available on the server. To get the file, send a message to: listserv@tamvm1.tamu.edu (if you are on the Internet) OR listserv@tamvm1 (if you are on the Bitnet) The message should consist of the single line: get ECCAI PROG linguist You will then receive the complete file.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Sat, 30 May 92 18:19:35 BST From: Donald Peterson Subject: Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences CONFERENCE REGISTRATION INFORMATION Royal Institute of Philosophy PHILOSOPHY and the COGNITIVE SCIENCES The University of Birmingham September 11-14 1992 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ The conference will address a variety of questions concerning the foundations of cognitive science and the philosophical importance of the models of mind which it produces. Topics will include: connectionism and classical AI, rules and representation, reasoning, concepts, rationality, multiple personality, the mind as a control system, blindsight, etc. Speakers will include: Stephen Stitch, Terry Horgan, Michael Tye, Margaret Boden, Aaron Sloman, Brian McLaughlin, Andrew Woodfield, Martin Davies, Antony Galton, Stephen Mills, Niels Ole Bernsen. Papers given at the conference will be published in a volume produced by the Cambridge University Press, as a supplement to the journal _Philosophy_. Copies of this document together with titles as they become available can be obtained by emailing the auto reply service: rip92@bham.ac.uk REGISTRATION To attend the conference, please fill in the form below and return it by post (not email) together with payment by cheque in pounds sterling to: Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference, Department of Philosophy, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K. Delegates will be considered registered when cheques have been cleared. The total for Registration, Bed and Breakfast and all meals is 122.50 pounds. For registered students and the unwaged, the Registration Fee will be waived if evidence of status is sent. For a limited number of postgraduate students, all other charges will be at half-price: if you wish to apply for this reduction, please write to the organisers indicating your research topic and reason for attending the conference. For bookings received after 7th August we cannot guarantee accommodation, and for bookings received after 10th August an additional charge of 10 pounds has to be made. Organisers: Chris Hookway (Philosophy), Donald Peterson (Cognitive Science). 30 May 1992. ______________________________________________________________________ REGISTRATION FORM Royal Institute of Philosophy PHILOSOPHY and the COGNITIVE SCIENCES The University of Birmingham September 11-14 1992 ______________________________________________________________________ REQUIREMENTS Registration Fee 25.00 _______ Late Registration Fee 10.00 _______ Bed and Breakfast 64.00 _______ Dinner 11 September 7.50 _______ Lunch 12 September 5.50 _______ Dinner 12 September 7.50 _______ Lunch 13 September 5.50 _______ Dinner 13 September 7.50 _______ All Meals 33.50 _______ Total _______ Vegetarian meals (please tick) _______ PERSONAL DETAILS Name ___________________________________________ Address ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Telephone No. ___________________________________________ Fax No. ___________________________________________ Email ___________________________________________ REGISTRATION I wish to register for the Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences, and enclose a cheque in pounds sterling payable to C.J. Hookway (Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference) for ________ Signed ___________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 18:34 CDT From: kkrohn@tamuts.tamu.edu (Katherine Elizabeth Krohn ) Subject: Comparative Germanic Syntax: Chomsky Second announcement PLEASE POST 8th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax ------------------------------------------- with a parasession on Comparative Germanic Phonology University of Tromso November 20-22, 1992 The 8th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, with a parasession on phonology, will be held at the University of Tromso, Norway, November 20-22. (This coincides with the arrival of the murkytide.) Invited speakers: Noam Chomsky Guglielmo Cinque Elisabet Engdahl Those who wish to present a paper (30 min. + discussion) are hereby invited to submit an abstract no longer than 2 pages before August 1, 1992. Preference will be given to presentations on parametric (and other) variation concerning / involving the Germanic languages. We expect to be able to meet travel expenses of the speakers. Abstracts should be sent anonymously in tenfold, accompanied by a camera-ready original with name and address of the author(s), to Tarald Taraldsen and Ove Lorentz ISL, University of Tromso N-9037 Tromso, Norway E-mail: Please send us a message if you want further information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-458. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-459. Tue 02 Jun 1992. Lines: 122 Subject: 3.459 Rules Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 15:10:15 EDT From: thrainss@husc.harvard.edu Subject: rules 2) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 16:13:09 EDT From: stainton@Athena.MIT.EDU Subject: Normative Rules -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 15:10:15 EDT From: thrainss@husc.harvard.edu Subject: rules Re Alexis Manaster-Ramer (Linguist 3-371) >The point that is being made is that a sequence like "man the" >would not constitute an NP even if it occurred in the speech >of an English speaker. There seems to be some need for clarification here. First we havee claimed that a sequence like "man the" or "dog the" or whatever may very wll occur in English but that would not necessarily tell us anything about the structure of NPs. Take for instance an utterance like "He gave the dog the bone". Here we do indeed find the sequence "dog the", but no linguist we know of would take that as a counterexample to the rule that the article precedes the noun in English NPs/ This practice of "sifting" your data in linguistics is, we believe, no different from the practice in other empirical disciplines. Our second point is this: the main issue is not that a sequence like `dog the' *couldn't* be an NP in some sense (intended as one, interpreted as one by someone who was clued in on the word-order game being played, parsed as one by someone whose parser has relaxed the constraint that the SPEC precedes the head, etc.), but simply that the mere fact of the appearance of such a sequence in someone's speech wouldn't in and of itself be evidence about the grammar internalized by English-speakers (or, more precisely, the mental structure that the grammar is an attempted description of). Isolated events, especially without a rich description of the surrounding context, simply aren't useful information, since you can't make sensible judgements about their possible causes. Hence we are not Itkonen-style normativists in principle, although we do believe that grammarians pretty much have to describe linguistic norms in practice, given that there don't seem to be reasonable methods for getting sufficiently extensive and repeatable results about idiolects. And we do agree with Alexis that linguistics needs to distinguish between `normal' and various other kinds of language use, where the constraints of the grammar won't necessarily apply. And, re Nyman (3-441), another way of looking at it is this. In order for the speakers of a language to distinguish the `normal' from the `non-normal', they have to have some `circuit' in their heads that gives a different reading in the two kinds of cases. We regard the nature of this `circuit' as the fundamental question of grammatical theory, with grammatical norms arising as a consequence of its nature and various other things (such as the whatever it is that tends to cause members of a speech-community to assimilate their grammars to each other). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 16:13:09 EDT From: stainton@Athena.MIT.EDU Subject: Normative Rules I enjoyed Alexis Manaster Ramer's recent posting. And I think he's right that there is a problem. But I would argue that the problem is not limited to linguistics. And this suggests that the solution shouldn't be phrased in terms specific to linguistics. By parity of reasoning, much of psychology would be "normative" in Itkonen's sense: By mistake or as a joke, people can *do* all sorts of things. (Generalization: if deprived of water for 48 hours, subjects will drink upon presentation of water -- unless they don't want to!!) Reflexes might be invariant; but what about everything else? What's more, the predictions of more familiar sciences are subject to "ceteris paribus" clauses. Small physical objects, upon release, will approach the earth -- unless a strong wind comes along, or some bozo catches it, or... Of course when doing experiments, scientists don't list all the things which could have gone wrong, but didn't. (Surely they couldn't give such a list.) They merely leave as background that all else *is* equal. True enough, statements about the behaviour predicted given a particular competence are also subject to ceteris paribus clauses. (For instance, we might have to stipulate that these are "normal" utterances.) But that's a problem which shows up all over the scientific map. And it should be understood as such. Just as water might boil at odd temperatures if it contains impurities, or if the air pressure is changed, speakers might say "Box the". We all agree that this is a problem. But it doesn't single out linguistics. (Nor do I think they differ in a matter of degree, say degree of precision.) And it doesn't, so far as I can see, call into question the notion of competence. Best, Rob Stainton MIT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-459 ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-460. Thu 04 Jun 1992. Lines: 191 Subject: 3.460 Conferences: Speech Synthesis, Computational Linguistics Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 19:38:07 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: Conference Announcement 2) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 20:32:19 wst From: ruslan@cs.usm.MY (ruslan mitkov) Subject: Computational Linguistics, Bulgaria -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 19:38:07 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: Conference Announcement SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SPEECH SYNTHESIS September, 1994 Arden House Harriman, New York, USA Preliminary Announcement Given the success of the ESCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis held September 25-28 1990, Autrans, France, we plan to hold the Second International Workshop on Speech Synthesis in September, 1994, at Arden House, Harriman, New York. The focus of this workshop will be the application of novel or theoretically interesting techniques for text-to-speech systems. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: o Applications of novel signal processing techniques to synthesis. o Techniques for generating inventories for concatenative systems. o Techniques for computing trajectories for formant/articulatory systems. o Models of timing, amplitude, and pitch. o Models of intonation, pitch accent and tone. o Computation of prosodic features from text. o Multi-lingual synthesis. o Evaluation techniques for synthesizers. o Text generation (message-to-speech). o Novel applications of speech synthesis. Planning for the workshop is in its early stages, so we welcome input on form or content, addressed to any one of us: Julia Hirschberg (julia@research.att.com) Richard Sproat (rws@research.att.com) Jan van Santen (jphvs@research.att.com) AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill NJ 07974 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Thu, 28 May 92 20:32:19 wst From: ruslan@cs.usm.MY (ruslan mitkov) Subject: Computational Linguistics, Bulgaria Machine Translation Project Fax (60-4) 873335 School of Computer Science Telex MA 40254 University of Science Malaysia Tel (60-4) 877888 ext. 2156 11800 Penang, Malaysia Residence (60-4) 846158 ************************************************* SEMINAR "CONTEMPORARY TOPICS IN COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS" Tzigov Chark (Batak Lake), Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria 24 September - 29 September '92 SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT The seminar "Contemporary topics in computational linguistics" will take place from 24th to 29th September 1992 in Tzigov Chark, Batak Lake, Bulgaria. It is intended (but not limited to) university students and will consist mainly of introductory courses. Considering the nature of most of the courses, undergraduate students are especially welcome. Furthermore a student session is envisaged within the tutorial, and students who would like to report on their research activities or final year projects will be given this opportunity (if volunteers are available, the student session programme will be compiled on site, each talk lasting approximately 15 minutes). Those who would like to extend their stay in Bulgaria can join the Bulgarian National seminar on mathematical and computational linguistics that will take place from 27th September to 4th October '92 at the same place. The seminar is organized by Incoma-TD Co, Ltd, Shumen, Bulgaria. The preliminary programme of the tutorial will include the following courses (two or three more lectures will probably be added): P. Seuren (University of Nijmegen, Holland) - Language and logic; Introduction to the study of language M. Zock (LIMSI, Orsay, France) - The problem of language and thought; A crash course in linguistics D. Estival (ISSCO, Geneva, Switzerland) - Unification formalisms in NLP; Reversible grammars M. Kudlek (Hamburg University, Germany) - Formal grammars and languages J. Haller (University of Saarbrucken, Germany) - Introduction to Machine Translation; Student training in MT J.P. Descles (University of Paris Sorbonne, France) - Categorial and applicative grammars H. Horacek (University of Bielefeld, Germany) - Pragmatic issues in natural language generation H. Somers (UMIST, Manchester, United Kingdom) - Corpus-based approaches to MT: challenging the orthodoxy Costs: The special participation fee at the seminar is 100 USA dollars for full-time students, 140 USA dollars for academic employees and 200 USA dollars for other participants. The fee includes attendance at the seminar, abstracts of the lectures, refreshments and a reception party as well as meals and accommodation in a 2-star hotel (two-bed rooms). Participants will be requested to pay in cash on site (any currency accepted). Seminar venue and Accommodation: The participants will be accommodated in Hotel "Orbita", Tzigov Chark. The courses will be given in the lecture hall of the hotel. Deadlines: The registration forms should arrive not later than 09.09.1992 at the address given below. On site registration is also possible. Further information: Participants who have sent their registration form, will receive at the latest in June 1992 the second announcement for the seminar and supplementary materials incl. information on how to get to the conference place. For further information you can also contact until10.07.92 Ruslan Mitkov at ruslan@cs.usm.my or after 10.07.92 Dominique Estival at estival@divsun.unige. ch or Mr.Nikolov Tel. (359-54)56948, Fax (359-54)56881. -------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-460. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-461. Thu 04 Jun 1992. Lines: 86 Subject: 3.461 Queries: Chinese, Lenneberg, Tags Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 19:12:50 SET From: Pier Marco Bertinetto Subject: Chinese diachrony 2) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 17:21:44 EDT From: rapaport@cs.Buffalo.EDU (William J. Rapaport) Subject: Lenneberg reference needed 3) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 92 19:13:41 +0000 From: tomoko@sccs.chukyo-u.ac.jp (INAGAWA Tomoko) Subject: Re: Query: tag-questions -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 19:12:50 SET From: Pier Marco Bertinetto Subject: Chinese diachrony Hallo! A student of mine needs informations concerning the diachronic study of Chinese languages. I would greatly appreciate a private answer; I shall of cou rse summerize the result in a later issue of the list. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 17:21:44 EDT From: rapaport@cs.Buffalo.EDU (William J. Rapaport) Subject: Lenneberg reference needed I have a reference to an article by Lenneberg describing an experiment in which high school students were given Sarah the chimp's symbols to manipulate: E. Lenneberg, "Neuropsychological Comparison between Man, Chimpanzee, and Monkey," Neuropsychologia 13 (1975) 125. Yet my library tells me that neither author nor title are in the index to Vol. 13. Can someone please give me a correct reference? Thanks. William J. Rapaport Associate Professor of Computer Science and Center for Cognitive Science Dept. of Computer Science||internet: rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu SUNY Buffalo ||bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet Buffalo, NY 14260 ||uucp: {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!rapaport (716) 636-3193, 3180 ||fax: (716) 636-3464 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 92 19:13:41 +0000 From: tomoko@sccs.chukyo-u.ac.jp (INAGAWA Tomoko) Subject: Re: Query: tag-questions Dear All, A senior student is writing a paper on tag-questions in English. Could anyone suggest me a reading list on the topic? Thanks in advance. Tomoko Inagawa Faculty of Letters Aichi Prefectural University E-mail: tomoko@sccs.chukyo-u.ac.jp -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-461. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-462. Thu 04 Jun 1992. Lines: 143 Subject: 3.462 How did we become linguists? Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: 2 June 1992, 18:57:33 CST From: Margaret.E.Winters.GA3704.at.SIUCVMB@tamvm1.tamu.edu Subject: How did we become linguists 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 11:00 MDT From: REBWHLR@cc.usu.edu Subject: on becoming a linguist 3) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:40 EST From: MORGAN@LOYOLA.EDU Subject: Re: 3.457 How did we end up linguists, Z. Harris 4) Date: 4 Jun 92 12:05:00 EST From: "ALICE FREED" Subject: RE: 3.457 How did we end up linguists, Z. Harris -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: 2 June 1992, 18:57:33 CST From: Margaret.E.Winters.GA3704.at.SIUCVMB@tamvm1.tamu.edu Subject: How did we become linguists I have just suddenly remembered a comment made to me when I told my plans to a Latin faculty member at Brooklyn College when I was finishing up my senior year there - "Philology (by which she and I meant linguistics)! - I thought you were interested in substantive issues." Oh well. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 11:00 MDT From: REBWHLR@cc.usu.edu Subject: on becoming a linguist Some years before I entered grad school in Linguistics (I'd never heard of linguistics at that point), I lived in DC. One afternoon, feeling kinda low, I envisioned the perfect pick-me-up. I went into a local bookstore and bought for myself a hardcover Roget's Thesaurus. (that was back in the days when it was a 'real' thesaurus, exhibiting conceptual categories, and analyzed by conceptual categories -- not like the current frequent alphabetized version) I immediately found a shady bench and lengthily pored over the conceptual analysis of English vocabulary. And felt MUCH better. Perhaps that it was also unusual that when in my early 20's, a man I was seeing asked me what I wanted for my birthday -- what I wanted was a Webster's Third International. So, now I'm a lexical semanticist -- Ph.D. dissertation was on the Lexical Entry of the English verb 'understand'. Just collected data from CD for 'analyze' last night. love it. rebecca wheeler rebwhlr@cc.usu.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 13:40 EST From: MORGAN@LOYOLA.EDU Subject: Re: 3.457 How did we end up linguists, Z. Harris Reading the "how I became a linguist" stories is fascinating. Some of us may have been fated-- with a Classicist for one parent and an English teacher for the other, what else does one do if not languages? In my case, it has turned out to be primarily historical linguistics, but the impulse is the same-- patterns over time. L. Morgan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Date: 4 Jun 92 12:05:00 EST From: "ALICE FREED" Subject: RE: 3.457 How did we end up linguists, Z. Harris Two recent though different topics, "How did we end up as linguists," and "Tributes to Zellig Harris" take me back to the exact same time and place so I feel compelled to comment. How we ended up as linguists is quite a different question from how we actually discovered linguistics. I prefer leaving aside the psychological and intellectual reasons for "ending up" as a linguist. But the story that I like to tell is that as a 2nd semester freshman at the University of Pennsylvania in the mid-sixties, I sat down with the college catalog to see what besides English and French literature I might study. (I thought there were too many majors in those departments.) I literally discovered linguistics from the catalog. So at the beginning of my sophomore year I took my first linguistics course to see if I liked it. I became one of only three undergraduate majors in linguistics at Penn. at the time and went on to do my graduate work there as well. I don't know whether Zellig Harris or Henry Hoenigswald or some combination of both of them plus others "created" linguistics at Penn, but I am grateful to them all. I studied with Zellig Harris for two and a half years. Despite his debated standing in our field today, he was an inspiration to me as a student. Whether or not he did us a disservice by his intellectual and professional isolationism, he talked to us about language in ways that were stimulating and exciting. He typically started his seminars, always held in his office, (which was always uncomfortably crowded), by asking if there were any questions. A single question would then become a two-hour lecture. His stream of consciousness lecturing style, which included a description of whatever piece of linguistic theory he was mulling over at the time, was more organized than many carefully prepared lectures I have heard. He covered the small blackboard in his office with his tiny handwriting and dispensed with all classroom formalities such as course requirements, grading and exams. He devoted his life to the study of language and assumed that his students were doing the same. I join others in mourning his death. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-462. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-463. Thu 04 Jun 1992. Lines: 89 Subject: 3.463 Department Closures Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 12:27:34 BST From: "Jonathan Kaye 323-6362" (JK at UKACRL) Subject: SOAS closing - update 2) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 12:05:13 EDT From: jsc@mbeya.research.att.com (John S. Coleman) Subject: Department Closures -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 12:27:34 BST From: "Jonathan Kaye 323-6362" (JK at UKACRL) Subject: SOAS closing - update 2 June 1992 Dear Friends, First of all, thanks to all of you. On behalf of our entire department we wish to express our appreciation for the overwhelming number of faxes, letters and email messages of support that we have received. It has done much to boost our morale and our colleagues from other departments have found your comments most enlightening. Because of our complex legal situation I am not at liberty to reveal much of what is going on. These constraints will certainly be lifted fairly soon and I will fill you in on the entire situation at that time. Briefly, we are still at risk. The administration is proceeding with the steps necessary to close down the department in October. I can give you some information that has not yet been widely publicised. (1) While the school is facing a budgetary "shortfall" there is no urgent financial crisis that would REQUIRE the administration to act as precipitously as it did. (2) The Administration has presented no evidence that closing the department will indeed have the effect of reducing the current deficit. (3) The ultimate motivations for these actions may not be primarily financial in nature; questions of Academic Freedom do enter into the current situation. Once again, thanks to you all for your support. I will be issuing further updates in the near future. Jonathan Kaye JK@UKACRL (BITNET) JK@UK.AC.RL.IB (JANET) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Wed, 27 May 92 12:05:13 EDT From: jsc@mbeya.research.att.com (John S. Coleman) Subject: Department Closures These latest announcements have reminded me of an idea I once had for protecting linguistics departments better. Will all heads of departments, deans etc. please SERIOUSLY consider, for the sake of the future of our discipline, changing the name of any department of linguistics to department of GRAMMAR. Not only would this be historically reasonable, but it would, I believe, advance our public image many times over. Nit-picking objections from colleagues whose specialisations lie somewhat outside the ``core'' components of grammatical theory should not oppose such a change of name if it protects their career prospects! After all, they wouldn't DARE to close down the GRAMMAR department, would they? And aren't politicians always calling for a return to the teaching of GRAMMAR? How could they possibly face the scandal of closing down GRAMMAR departments? This is a serious suggestion. It could be your department next! --- John Coleman -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-463. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-464. Thu 04 Jun 1992. Lines: 102 Subject: 3.464 Innateness and Rules Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 12:53:36 PDT From: andrews@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Avery Andrews) Subject: innateness 2) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 09:13 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.459 Rules 3) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 20:24:30 EDT From: Alexis_Manaster_Ramer@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu Subject: 3.459 Rules -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 12:53:36 PDT From: andrews@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Avery Andrews) Subject: innateness I would like to clarify the point that I am not at all skeptical of something like UG being innate (I find the `poverty of the stimulus' argument entirely convincing, in spite of `motherese', etc.). What I do find unmotivated on purely linguistic grounds (and probably unmotivatable on such grounds) is that idea that what is innate is specific to language. I believe that this is also the issue that Joe Stemberger has trouble with. Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 09:13 PDT From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: Re: 3.459 Rules Re the discussion on 'normative' rules etc. Anyone who listens for or notates or works with speech errors will affirm I am sure that all kinds of ill-formed stuff is produced. What is important is that speakers of the language know it is illformed. Otherwise there is no sense to the notion 'slip of the tongue' or 'error'. Try the following on your friends,students,even enemies and see how many will (in a decision task) agree that something is wrong' or the sentences are 'ungrammatical' or 'funny' or.... 1) the last I know about that 2) where is the grandballroom, by any chance? 3) it would be of interesting to see 4) she was waiting her husband for 5) how he can get it done it time? 6) does it hear different? (for 'does it sound different?) 7) she made him to do the assignment over 8) she promised me to secrecy 9) did you stay up very last night? 10) it took you longer to read it than it took me to wrote it. The knolwedge that these are ill-formed in English has nothing to do with normative rules -- just grammatical constraints. V -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 20:24:30 EDT From: Alexis_Manaster_Ramer@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu Subject: 3.459 Rules Thanks to Hoslkuldur Thrainsson and Rob Stainton for addressing the issue I raised of how we identify 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' utterances. I think we all three agree that linguistics should be able to defend its ability to make this distinction. However, I do not think that this as easy as either of you seem to think. Thus, the status of abnormal utterances cannot easily be compared to that of water boiling at other 100 degrees C when mixed with impurities. For, physical theory predicts precisely at what temperature it will boil depending on the kind and amount of the impurities. Likewise, physical theory can explain why a small object, when dropped, does not always fall. However, linguistic theories, as normally stated, simply ignore abnormal utterances. For this reason, I also find Hoskuldur's position a little too optimistic: when we throw out abnormal utterances, we are not just sifting the data. We are making crucial decisions which must either be justified in some way or else they do make normativists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-464. ________________________________________________________________ make-up of the LINGUIST List: where the majority of subscribers are, or even whether there are others from the subscriber's country on the list. Since the academic year has ended here in the northern hemisphere, we actually had some time to interrogate the Listserv about LINGUIST, and this is the result. We thought that it might be of sufficiently general interest to justify posting the result here. Anthony & Helen * Country Subscribers * ------- ----------- * ?? 12 * Australia 55 * Austria 5 * Belgium 11 * Brazil 4 * Canada 155 * Columbia 1 * Costa Rica 1 * Czechoslovakia 2 * Denmark 10 * Egypt 4 * Finland 42 * France 25 * Germany 101 * Greece 5 * Hongkong 14 * Hungary 4 * Iceland 5 * India 1 * Ireland 4 * Israel 18 * Italy 14 * Japan 45 * Korea 4 * Malaysia 1 * Mexico 3 * Netherlands 121 * New Zealand 7 * Norway 18 * Poland 2 * Saudi-Arabia 1 * Singapore 11 * South Africa 3 * Spain 19 * Sweden 16 * Switzerland 15 * Taiwan 11 * Turkey 4 * United Kingdom 110 * USA 1512 * USSR 2 * Yugoslavia 1 * Zimbabwe 1 * * Total number of users subscribed to the list: 2402 * Total number of countries represented: 44 (non-"concealed" only) * Total number of nodes represented: 1039 (non-"concealed" only) * ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-465. Sat 06 Jun 1992. Lines: 355 Subject: 3.465 Adjectives, Compounds Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: 03 Jun 1992 08:58:05 EDT From: Robert Beard Subject: 3.454 Adjectives 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 13:16:04 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: _unhappier_ 3) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 16:40:35 EST From: Greg Stump Subject: the _unhappier_ paradox 4) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 15:45 +0800 From: MATTHEWS@HKUCC.bitnet Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP 5) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 12:59:21 GMT From: Arnold D J Subject: 3.452 Query: X-bar and VP -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: 03 Jun 1992 08:58:05 EDT From: Robert Beard Subject: 3.454 Adjectives I would like to do two things in response to the Stump- Sproat debate: (1) present a simple explanation of the relation of comparison and negation and (2) take issue with Sproat's point (4), that all morphological theories render bracketing paradoxes for cases like _unhappier_. Obviously theories without bracketing have no bracketing paradoxes; the question is: do they have comparable problems. I don't see any. 1a. There are only two logically possible bracketings for _unhappier_: (a) [unhappi]er and (b) un[happier]. (a) implies the neutral, lexically negated adjective _unhappy_ is compared; (b) implies that the compared adjective _happier_ is lexically negated. (Syntactic negation is marked by the particle_not_ in English. The evidence that it is syntactic derives from the facts that _not_ (a) moves in syntax and (b) simply negates; it doesn't involve such conditioned variables as contrariness, reversivity, etc.) 1b. Comparative and Superlative forms are never lexically negated because Comparison is an inflectional category and is therefore formed after lexical (L-) derivation. Evidence: many languages have an analytical comparative, _more happy_, _less happy_, which require syntactic structure. Since inflectional rules apply in syntax (please don't risk much of your career on the assumption that it doesn't), Comparison must apply after all L-derivation is complete. It follows that *un[happier] is impos- sible for the same reason that *_unbetter_, *_unsicker_, *_unfaster_, *_untaller_, etc. are. 1c. Conclusion: The only grammatically possible bracketing for _unhappier_ is [unhappi]er], precisely what we get. Phono- logy has to work with that and, as long as we are not trying to salvage lexical phonology, it can. Given the Peripherality (Outward Sensitivity) Constraint, there are always only two ways to bracket any word and those two ways are determined by whether the affixation involves a prefix or suffix. Moreover, bracketing makes no sense at all with infixation, revowelling, stem muta- tions. How do you bracket the noun _cook_ so that the corres- pondence rules interprets it identically as _baker_? The question makes no sense. As Steve Anderson, Mark Aronoff, P. H. Matthews, myself, and many others have long argued, there is no bracketing therefore there can be no bracketing paradoxes. That is, all bracketing is predictable from the minimum definitions of the morphemes involved. 2. It is not true therefore wrong that all theories predict that _unhappier_ is a bracketing paradox and therefore produce a story for it. Lexical morphology predicts paradoxes here but Lexeme-Morpheme Base theories (LMBM) do not. The lexicon under LMBM contains all and only open-class items, i.e. N, V, A excluding pro-N, pro-V, and pro-A: the same division Garrett gets in his production model, the same division which haunts aphasio- logical studies. The Separation Hypothesis now derives from the architecture of this model and the strongest form of modularity which keeps all lexical categories and operations in the lexicon, all syntactic categories and operations in the lexicon and all morphological operations, the grammatically empty modification of lexemes conditioned by features added by lexical and syntactic operations, in an autonomous morphological spelling component. So long as derivational operations apply in the appropriate order, spelling operations--affixation, revowelling, mutation, nothing--apply blindly and come out in the correct order, stra- tally or not, this makes no difference. The data. Phonological principles alone cannot define the distribution of _-er_. Here's why: the distribution of synthetic comparision in English cannot be predicted purely on phonological principles. (What sort of natural class is "all monosyllabic stems and disyllabic stems ending on an open syllable with a light vowel" anyway?) In fact, PRODUCTIVELY, only disyllabic lexemes containing the morphemes -_y_ and -_ly_ (when used on adjectives but not adverbs: _friendlier_ but *_quicklier_) form synthetic comparatives. Phonology alone certainly does not determine that synthetic forms are allowed only if two adjectives are not compared: My car is redder than yours *My car is redder than orange My car is more red than orange So when comparative constructions arrive at Phonology, the deci- sion as to which comparative is synthetic and which, analytic has already been made and it is a syntactic and/or lexical, not phonological, decision. The question as to what kind of features condition this distinction, therefore, is wide open and clearly the lexicon and syntax are involved. If we allow morphology to handle all affixation, the prefix _un_- is simply added to the modest list of two affixes, -_y_ and -_ly_ which permit _-er_ within syllabic limits. LMBM inflection has already inserted a grammatical feature, say, [+Comparative] into Spec\A and how that feature is used, i.e. where and with what phonological substance is spelled in depends upon the morphology. The decision between /mor/ in Spec position or reading Spec and suffixing the head is the same decision involved in cliticizing the head under Anderson's (_A-Morphous Morphology_, chapter 8) combined principles of clitic-affix distribution. An autonomous morpholgy can read the phonological matrix or the grammatical representation of the lexeme, certainly its derivational history. Since both inflectional and derivational morphology is handled by the same component, there is no possibility that a marker of some lexical derivation feature will be placed outside an inflectional marker. No, I'm afraid that there are far grander differences between morphological theories than Sproat leads us to believe (see what Carstairs-McCarthy and Spencer, for example, think). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 13:16:04 EDT From: rws@mbeya.research.att.com (Richard Sproat) Subject: _unhappier_ For those who care, please emend my nonsensical parenthetical to read: (Note that `very' fails for clear scalars like `all', so perhaps what is really tested by `very' is gradability rather than scalar-hood. Thanks to Gregory Ward for this and other points.) Richard Sproat Linguistics Research Department AT&T Bell Laboratories tel (908) 582-5296 600 Mountain Avenue, Room 2d-451 fax (908) 582-7308 Murray Hill, NJ 07974 rws@research.att.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 16:40:35 EST From: Greg Stump Subject: the _unhappier_ paradox The following is a reply to Richard Sproat's reply to my comment on his _unhappier_ squib (LI 23 (1992), 347-352). Responding to my question of whether the comparative form of a scalar adjective is itself necessarily scalar, Richard says I guess it rather depends upon definitions here, but if by `scalar' one means `scalar predicate' in the sense of Horn (1972) or Hirschberg (1991), then surely _unhappier_ is scalar but offers no justification for this conclusion. I think, though, that my original question is more subtle than this somewhat glib response gives it credit for being. I don't have access to Hirschberg's dissertation, but Horn's (1972) conception of scalar predicates is intuitively this: scalar predicates are predicates that designate contrasting points or intervals on some scale; thus, _warm_ and _hot_ are scalar predicates, because they designate contrasting intervals on a scale of temperature. Clearly _happy_ is scalar in this sense; but whether _happier_ is scalar in this same sense is far from clear, and it is precisely this question that my earlier posting was intended to raise. The simplest examples of scalar adjectives are gradable adjectives (i.e. those denoting properties which one may possess to a greater or lesser degree), and it is pretty clear that _happier_ isn't gradable. As an analogy, consider the following model: (i) A B C Is B any less on A's right than C is? No, because the `right of' relation is one of direction, not of distance. (One could, of course, say that C is FARTHER to the right of A than B is, but this is because _far_ interjects the parameter of distance.) Thus, in the one-dimensional model in (i), _right of_ is a non-gradable predicate; B doesn't possess the property of being on the right of A to any lesser degree than C does. Now, suppose that (i) represents three points on a one-dimensional scale of happiness (where individual A is at the point of abject sadness and individual C at that of delirious elation). On this assumption, the `happier' relation seems simply to be the analogue of the `right of' relation, again pertaining to direction but not to distance: B may be less happy than C, but it's not clear that B possesses the property of being happier than A to any lesser degree than C does; either you're happier than A or you're not. The assumption that _happier_ is non-gradable correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of expressions like *_very happier_, *_less happier_, and *_as happier as Sandy_. Note that while sentences like _C is much happier than B_ might seem to suggest that _happier_ is gradable, they are probably comparable to sentences like _C is farther to the right of A than B is_; _much_, like _far_, seems to add a gradable parameter of distance to a non-gradable parameter of direction. In and of itself, the conclusion that _happier_ isn't gradable doesn't entail that it isn't scalar, since there are scalar adjectives that aren't gradable (e.g. the adjective _universal_). There are, however, independent criteria that can be used to test the claim that _happier_ is scalar. For instance, the semantic properties of scalar predicates associated with the same scale cause them to exhibit an asymmetry with respect to contexts like `_____ if not actually _____' and `not only _____ but _____': (ii) The sandwich was warm if not actually hot. *The sandwich was hot if not actually warm. The sandwich was not only warm but hot. *The sandwich was not only hot but warm. (iii) Their performance was good if not actually excellent. *Their performance was excellent if not actually good. Their performance was not only good but excellent. *Their performance was not only excellent but good. (iv) What ensued was widespread if not actually universal pandemonium. *What ensued was universal if not actually widespread pandemonium. What ensued was not only widespread but universal pandemonium. *What ensued was not only universal but widespread pandemonium. Note, however, that _happy_ and _happier_ do not participate in these asymmetries: (v) Sandy is happier (than she was last year) if not actually happy. Sandy is happy if not actually happier (than she was last year). Sandy is not only happier (than she was last year) but happy. Sandy is not only happy but happier (than she was last year). That is, with respect to these criteria, _happier_ doesn't behave as if it were a scalar adjective associated with the same scale as _happy_. Intuitively, this makes good sense, since unlike _happy_, _happier_ doesn't clearly designate a fixed point or interval on the scale of happiness; if anything, it designates a direction on that scale. But if _happier_ isn't scalar, then Richard's claim that the structure [ un [ happi er ]] is semantically workable becomes rather hard to defend. In response to my assertion that the _unhappier_ paradox becomes completely unparadoxical in the Paradigm Function Theory advocated in my article in _Language_ 67 (1991: 675-725), Richard says The point is that, *all* analyses of bracketing paradoxes have presented what seemed to the authors at the time to be well- motivated theories wherein bracketing paradoxes ceased to be such. Indeed, it would be bizarre if things were otherwise, since presumably nobody who treats an apparently paradoxical construction wants to argue that the construction in question remains a paradox in their theory. But the point in my earlier posting is that the _un-ADJ-er_ construction doesn't actually cease to be paradoxical in the approach envisioned in Richard's squib. On the approach he advocates, _unhappier_ is given a single structural analysis (viz. [ un [ happi er ]]), valid both for phonological and for semantic purposes; by contrast, cases like _uneasier_ and _slaphappier_ each have to have two different structural analyses ([ un [ easi er ]] and [ slap [ happi er ]] for phonological purposes, but [[ un easi ] er ] and [[ slap happi ] er ] for semantic purposes). Thus, the paradox remains, though in a somewhat disguised form: despite the obvious parallelism between the three expressions, _uneasier_ and _slaphappier_ have to be analyzed differently from _unhappier_. This paradox vanishes in the Paradigm Function Theory, in which the three expressions receive a uniform analysis at all levels. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 15:45 +0800 From: MATTHEWS@HKUCC.bitnet Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP Concerning Rick Moreau's query, the same claim about internal arguments being incorporated into compounds is made (in a finer form appealing to the thematic hierarchy) in Jane Grimshaw's recent book, "Argument Structure" which may well contain discussion of Rick's counterexamples. The solution surely has to do with the fact that examples like "man-made hill" contain passive participles. It is questionable whether "man" here is an external argument of the verb "make". In one GB account of the passive developed by Ian Roberts, the optional object of the by-phrase is an "implicit argument". Under a lexical approach to the passive, it would clearly not be an external argument. At any rate, the relevant argument structure underlying "man-made hill" is that of "hill (is) made by man" rather than that of "man makes hill." Osvaldo Jaeggli's paper on the Passive in Linguistic Inquiry (1986) deals with the status of the agentive by-phrase. IT may be that the compounding theorists would have to modify the definition of internal argument to deal with these cases. Stephen Matthews, University of Hong Kong -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 12:59:21 GMT From: Arnold D J Subject: 3.452 Query: X-bar and VP Some (I hope) helpful remarks for Rick Moreau: I think the reason Rick Morneau's example are not (necessarily) counter-examples to claims about how internal and external arguments operate in compounds is that the verbs that are the heads of the compounds are actually passive. These are his examples: man-made hill customer-selected colors snake-infested swamp In `man-made', you may seem to have a verb (make) getting its exeternal argument (man) inside the compound (cf `men make X'), but in fact, what you have is a passive (made), and an internal argument (made by man). This is clearest with the last example: ?snakes infest the swamp vs. the swamp is infested by/with snakes. As regards the (non-) existence of VP, and coordination facts, there has been a good deal of work in Categorial Grammar recently: Steedman's paper in Language is a starting point ( J. Steedman, "Dependency and coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English," Language, vol. 61, pp. 523-568, 1985). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Arnold, doug@uk.ac.sx (Janet) Dept. of Language & Linguistics, doug%essex.ac.uk@ean-relay.ac.uk (ean) University of Essex, doug%essex.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu (arpa) Wivenhoe Park, doug%essex.ac.uk@ac.uk (earn) Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK. ...!ukc!essex.ac.uk!doug (uucp) Tel: +44 206 872084 (direct) Fax: +44 206 872085 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-465. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-466. Sat 06 Jun 1992. Lines: 180 Subject: 3.466 Rules Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 08:10:10 +0000 From: Dyvik@hf.uib.no Subject: 3.464 Innateness and Rules 2) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 17:32:03 HST From: David Stampe Subject: 3.459 Rules 3) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 18:24 PDT From: benji wald Subject: Re: 3.464 Innateness and Rules -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 08:10:10 +0000 From: Dyvik@hf.uib.no Subject: 3.464 Innateness and Rules Vicki Fromkin gives a list of ten ill-formed constructions and comments: "The knowledge that these are ill-formed in English has nothing to do with normative rules -- just grammatical constraints." The fact that I immediately read this as a contradiction in terms indicates that some clarification of our concepts is in order. If 'normative rules' in this discussion is taken to mean 'explicitly formulated statements by prescriptive grammarians', Fromkin's statement makes sense - but that is not what I have taken the discussion to be about. Perhaps we should use the term 'prescriptive rules' for this phenomenon, and reserve the term 'norms' for the implicit (i.e., not explicitly formulated) social conventions that we have to assume in order to account for people's ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect behaviour. We should also distinguish between questions concerning these norms and questions concerning the way knowledge of them comes about and is structured in the individual. Even strictly descriptive linguists are 'normative' in the sense that they are describing a norm-based phenomenon. This does not make their task less empirical (in spite of Itkonen) - as opposed to that of the prescriptive grammarians, who try to impose would-be norms of their own or someone else's creation on us. Helge Dyvik -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 17:32:03 HST From: David Stampe Subject: 3.459 Rules This whole discussion of normal and abnormal data seems abnormal. Is "dog the" a noun phrase? It might happen, if you were talking about noun phrases. But who would talk about noun phrases? Niemann & Noone's _Generative description of an abnormal variety of English_ provides a formal description of the syntax of an isolated community where, due to Scandinavian influence, English sentences like "Beware of the dog" have been replaced by sentences like "Beware of dog the". Although older speakers only change the order of the definite article, Niemann & Noone note that young speakers change the order of the indefinite article as well, e.g. "Take hike a". They argue that this provides strong support for recent work in syntactic theory. They admit that their grammar occasionally fails to conform to their corpus (1) ---------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The entire corpus is available in machine readable form for a nominal license fee from the Oxford Text Hoard, who kindly granted permission to quote these examples for educational purposes, provided that no one else reads them. ---------------------------------------------------------------- e.g., EXPECTED OBSERVED cat the in hat the cat in hat the the Hague The The Hague another thing nother thing a apple an day a apple day an a B A C's A B C's Arbor Ann Ann Arbor but they convincingly dismiss these cases as performance abnormalities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 18:24 PDT From: benji wald Subject: Re: 3.464 Innateness and Rules I missed the discussion leading up to the exchange of June 3,4 re: subject 3.459. Therefore, I am not sure exactly what is meant by 'normative' rules. However, it seems clear that it means either rules that are overtly taught, or more relevantly to the discussion, rules which discriminate between what (some) people say (not clearly distinguishing speech errors from nonstandard stigmatised forms) from notions of correctness or grammaticality (in the nonlinguistic popular sense) -- however the latter are obtained. In any case, I have to agree with Alexis' message of 4 June, that crucial decisions are made in sifting the data, and justification is not always as easy as many linguists seem to think. Vicky's suggestions of 3 June are a case in point. Without even questioning whether or not her list consist exclusively of bona fide speech errors, the METHOD itself will not allow discrimination of speech errors from stigmatised, commonly used, and grammatically constrained rule-governed behavior which result in the following in some dialects of English. 1) hold your cards where can't nobody see them 2) it don't be dark yet 3) I wouldn't did that (which can only have a habitual reading in the dialect considered here, i.e., it means "I didn't used to do that", or would you prefer "I used not to do that"? , and not "I wouldn't have done that". not to mention banalities like: 4) he ain't got none Do the same experiment as Vicky suggests with the above, and you'll get lots of agreement that there is something "wrong", "funny" and/or ungrammatical. This being the case, what does Vicky's suggestion prove? It does not distinguish speech errors from stigmatised nonstandard normative rules/grammatical constraints. The issue here is not whether or not there are speech errors, but how to develop a scientific method to distinguish them from stigmatised rule- governed forms. To show how difficult this may be, even Labov, who may have been the first to make the argument that I am calling attention to here, made a mistake when he held up the following structure as non- English, and thus he would presumably have considered it a speech error if he had encountered it: 5) anybody doesn't know that (meaning "nobody knows that") It didn't take long before he got jumped on by Irish English speakers. It turns out to be perfectly acceptable in the English spoken in Ireland. Thus, the distinction between speech errors and stigmatised norms/rules is far from obvious IN PRACTICE. The interesting questions have to do with what is a speech error when said by one speaker but not when said by another. The implication is that a speech error may anticipate linguistic change (and eventually prescriptive change). That is, change which either relaxes or adds further constraints on grammatical rules. I think Vicky would agree with this, because her most common use of speech errors is to show what they reveal about the nature of linguistic rules. Where someone may anticipate linguistic change in making a speech error, maybe we have an indication that the rule is "fragile". That is, regardless of how a particular speaker feels about the "error", the rule which makes him/her feel that way is not supported by other grammatical rules which would help it resist change. CF. the old controversy about the status of quantifiers like "every" under negation, e.g., whether "everybody doesn't know that" can mean "nobody knows that" vs. the other meaning. There are speakers who insist that only the other interpretation is acceptable, and yet have actually used the "nobody knows" in speech. Error? Who knows? Is there really a constraint, or is this an example of the limits of the depth to which "constraints" penetrate into a grammar, beyond which we just have preferred and non-preferred STRATEGIES, which might result in such reactions as "Yeah, maybe when somebody else says everybody doesn't know that, they mean nobody knows that, but when I say it I mean some do, some don't. If I meant "nobody..." I would say "nobody..." But, in the heat of conversation, would this speaker do so? And if not, is it a grammatical error for the speaker, or "just" a strategic error, in terms of the speaker's (overtly?) preferred strategies? Finally, with regard to the question of whether linguistic capacity is something specific or a mainfestation of something else, the errors or anticipations of change discussed above may be quite different from other kinds of errors which "noone" would dispute or expect to become "norms" in some community, e.g., long-range metatheses like "a cuff of coppee" -- but the blends depending on lexical constraints are more problematic. Most of Vicky's examples either are, or are intended to be, of this type. It is not clear to me that long-distance metatheses are motivated by any more of an innate linguistic capacity than typing letters in the wrong sequence or putting the jelly on before the peanut butter. The line between strategies and grammar is possibly the best place to look for innate linguistic capacities. Blends may be unclear because they have different possible motivations, both linguistic and non-linguistic. Does this make any sense? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-466. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-467. Sat 06 Jun 1992. Lines: 160 Subject: 3.467 FYI: Idioms, Harris, Tags, OULIPO Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 16:44 -0300 From: WTGORDON@AC.DAL.CA Subject: Re: 3.451 Queries: presupposition, dialect, idioms, etc. 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 13:31:37 EDT From: "Bruce E. Nevin" Subject: correction of Harris date 3) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 13:31:29 PDT From: rubba@bend.UCSD.EDU (Johanna Rubba) Subject: joke of the week 4) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 22:49:22 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: 3.461 Queries: Chinese, Lenneberg, Tags 5) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 12:41 BST From: Lou Burnard Subject: RE: 3.450 OULIPO 6) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 08:52:01 MET DST From: amblard@imag.fr (Paul Amblard) Subject: Re: 3.450 OULIPO -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 16:44 -0300 From: WTGORDON@AC.DAL.CA Subject: Re: 3.451 Queries: presupposition, dialect, idioms, etc. Re: bibliography of idioms--see my Semantics: A Bibliography 1965-1978 (1980) and Semantics: A Bibliography 1979-1985 (1987). I have an update to the end of 1991 in press and will send hard copy of the idiom section, if you will supply your address. W.T. Gordon/WTGORDON@ac.dal.ca -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 13:31:37 EDT From: "Bruce E. Nevin" Subject: correction of Harris date I have been of two minds whether to post this correction, as it isn't of substantial importance. I confounded the year of Harris's birth with the story about his choice of name at age 4. I should have verified, I can plead only that my extracurricular writing is done in slices of time after I put the children to bed and after I should have put myself to bed. Harris was born in 1909 and was (as Ellen said) 82. Bruce Nevin bn@bbn.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 13:31:29 PDT From: rubba@bend.UCSD.EDU (Johanna Rubba) Subject: joke of the week This from an ad in the back section of the NY Times magazine for one of those learn-French-by cassette-outfits -- "We offer introductory and advanced materials in most of the world's languages: French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin, Greek, Russian, Arabic, Korean, and others. 215 courses in 76 languages." Audio-Forum, Guilford CT. Their number is 213-453-9794 if anyone would like to offer a small correction. Jo Rubba, UC Riverside/UC San Diego -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 22:49:22 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: 3.461 Queries: Chinese, Lenneberg, Tags Tag Questions: As always, when dealing with English, Jim McCawley's Syntactic Phenomena of English (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press) is a worthwhile source of data, analysis, and references. Although I do not do transformational syntax, I use it as a constant challenge. In each chapter there are dozens of cases where I have to ask myself: can my framework handle that? It is an excellent tonic! Eric Schiller University of Chicago schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 12:41 BST From: Lou Burnard Subject: RE: 3.450 OULIPO How nice to see Linguist discussing some of my favourite authors for a change instead of ranting on about its own identity and othger professional anxieties. Has anyone else come across Stefan Themerson? His London-based Gabberbochus Press (the name is supposedly Latin for 'Jabberwock') was for a long time the only publisher of Jarry's work in English translation, which I always imagine allowed it to finance the publication of Themerson's own bizarre novels, two of which (Bayamus and the Theatre of Semantic Poetry) are distinctly OULIPesque in inspiration and achievement. Furthermore, may I take this opportunity to announce the availability of an electronic version of Queneau's Exercices de Style from the Oxford Text Archive? By one of those strange coincidences, I had been working on it for an entirely other reason (the preparation of a demonstration French text using draft TEI recommendations) when this notice appeared. As previously announced here, you can access the OTA by ftp at black.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]. The Queneau text is in directory \ota\french\ and, although not yet finally validated and checked, is worth a look if you're interested in problems of text encoding, though I say it myself. Lou Burnard -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 08:52:01 MET DST From: amblard@imag.fr (Paul Amblard) Subject: Re: 3.450 OULIPO Reponse au courrier suivant de The Linguist List en date du 2 Jun : * Objet : "3.450 OULIPO" About OULIPO and Raymond QUENEAU, do not forget to read his arithmetical works : Sur les suites s-additives, Journal of combinatorial theory (A) 12, 31-71 (1972) ed :academic press,inc. -- Paul AMBLARD L.G.I. I.M.A.G. BP 53X F 38041 GRENOBLE Cedex Tel (33) 76514600 ext 5144 amblard@imag.fr -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-467. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-468. Sat 06 Jun 1992. Lines: 56 Subject: 3.468 Job: Applied Linguistics Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: 4 June 1992, 08:45:27 CST From: Geoffrey.S.Nathan.GA3662.at.SIUCVMB@tamvm1.tamu.edu Subject: Last minute Position -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: 4 June 1992, 08:45:27 CST From: Geoffrey.S.Nathan.GA3662.at.SIUCVMB@tamvm1.tamu.edu Subject: Last minute Position Please note the early application deadline on the following: SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY AT CARBONDALE Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics, effective August 1992. Applicants should have a strong background in Applied Linguistics with a TEFL/TESL focus and will be expected to teach a variety of courses within the department's M.A. programs in EFL and Applied Linguistics, and B.A. program in Linguistics. Candidates with specializations in Classroom Research, Discourse Analysis or Pragmatics are preferred. Preference will be given to those who have completed all requirements for the PhD by the time of employment. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled, but primary consideration will be given to those who submit complete applications including letter of application, curriculum vitae, and three letters of reference before July 1, 1992 to: Chair, Search Committee Department of Linguistics Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Carbondale, IL, 62901 Telephone: (618) 536-3385 E-mail: GA3606@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Fax: (618) 457-4356 SIUC is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Women and Minorities are encouraged to apply. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguist List: Vol-3-468. ________________________________________________________________ Linguist List: Vol-3-469. Sat 06 Jun 1992. Lines: 90 Subject: 3.469 X-Bar and VP's Moderators: Anthony Aristar: Texas A&M University Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan University Assistant Editor: Brian Wallace: bwallace@emunix.emich.edu -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 11:44 PDT From: Scott Delancey Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 11:25:57 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 11:44 PDT From: Scott Delancey Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP Responding to Rick Morneau: The suggestion that the verb is the head of its clause and all its arguments codependent is the basis of dependency representation, as originated (as far as I know ?) by L. Te`sniere, and used more recently by R. Hudson, John Anderson, and others. I'm not aware that Jackendoff ever pursued such a suggestion, but in any case it predates his birth. Scott DeLancey -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 11:25:57 CDT From: Eric Schiller Subject: Re: Query: X-bar and VP If you are seriously interested in getting the GB/Barriers/Economy/ Minimalist particular version of X-bar to work, you should look at Lieber's new book "Deconstructing Morphology", University of Chicago Press 1992. That said, I think there are a huge number of problems with her analysis, not all of them limited to the problems of thje framework as a whole. I am working on a review and may post bits as I go along. But don't lose sleep over the fact that you are befuddled. The research program of the principles and parameters framework ios is not really geared toward producing complete and coherent analysis of real language facts. The judgements of English seem to change frequently, and those in Lasnik's recent LI article were rejected by virtually everyone we have checked with here at UC. The notion that case and theta theory apply accross some sort of bridge between syntax and morphology is one which needs better working out. Morphology played a significant role in Syntactic Structures but disappeared from the framework during the 1960's and 1970's. It has come back with a passion, but one should expect a normal amount of meandering before any consensus is reached. The Principles and Parameters framewkork is intended to encompass a wide range of language facts, and correspondingly has more problematic areas than frameworks which focus on a single aspect of language, such as RG. Although I don't agree with most of the mechanisms they employ, being an Autolexicalist, I certainly appreciate the problem. Morphology does seem to have a lot of superficial resemblance to syntax, but I think that it is wrongheaded to employ a model identical to syntax, as Lieber does. It is a good hypothesis, but, like the Projection Principle, recently abandoned, it will eventually fall in the face of overwhelming