edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (02/25/87)
I am thinking about doing a paper on a topic that I think is one of
the Fundamental Problems of Linguistics. Namely, is a sentence always
the proper datum for doing GB, GPSG or other roughly related research.
Let me say outright that I am not a particular fan of GB or that line
of research. I do like GPSG, but one of its problems is that its roots
are in GB, or the basis for GB.
Chomsky would argue that a sentence is the proper place for doing work
in Linguistics (syntax ?). He would also say that sentences that seem
gramatical in a certain context are really syntactically ungrammatical,
but pragmatically correct. Or something on that line of thought.
What I am interested in, is any references or any thoughts (specific
examples) on this topic.
Thanks
mark
--
edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (02/26/87)
[I have directed follow-up to sci.lang alone. It was no doubt the lack of discussion of linguistics that was behind the original misposting to a group other than sci.lang] In article <1111@uwmacc.UUCP> edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes: > I am thinking about doing a paper on a topic that I think is one of > the Fundamental Problems of Linguistics. Namely, is a sentence always > the proper datum for doing GB, GPSG or other roughly related research. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) is a theory that will let one write grammars that define phrase structure trees. Thus a grammar written using GPSG not only defines the class of well-formed Ss, but also the class of well-formed NPs, PPs, A's, etc. Government and Binding theory (GB) is much more a theory about Ss. I do not see how it could tell you whether an NP in isolation is well formed: It would neither be assigned Case nor a Theta-role. But, somehow, I gather that you are really asking about units larger then the sentence. I will get to that below. > Let me say outright that I am not a particular fan of GB or that line > of research. I do like GPSG, but one of its problems is that its roots > are in GB, or the basis for GB. GPSG is not derivative of GB in any sense. But GPSG and GB have common origins. Both are theories of "Generative Syntax" (but see the first chapter of "GPSG" by Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag for a statement that GP fails to meet the criteria of generative syntax.) I do not want to go over the entire history of the field, but the lasting split in gernative syntax occured when Chomsky decide that he didn't like Raising To Object. Until that time, syntacticians (I got tired of writing "generative" all over the place) treated "Mary" in (1) to be structurally the object of "expect" at surface structure. (1) He expected Mary to be late. S ______|_______ | | NP VP | ________|_________ He | | | V NP ? | | | expected Mary to be late Instead Chomsky wanted a structure more like: S _____|______ | | NP VP | ______|_______ He | | V S | ______|______ expected | | | NP INFL VP | | | Mary to be late It was about this time that people who had sided with him during a previous battle broke off and developed other theories: Relational Grammar (Perlmutter and Postal) and Micheal Brame's nontransformational theory. Based on these and on serious thought about semantics (mostly by people who had lost the previous war with the Chomsky line), other theories came into being: Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan), Arc Pair Grammar (Postal), Montague Grammar (Partee, Dowty). All of these people essentaily treated "Mary" in (1) as the object of expect at their surface level. Meanwhile, the Chomsky line went from Standard Theory (where he too had Raising to Object) to the Extended Standard Theory to the Revised Extended Standard Theory (some people called it "the Over extended Standard Theory") to GB and now to "Barriers". Again, this is just talking about generative syntax. There were and are those opposed to the entire enterprise, but space doesn't permit mention of them here. Anyway, to come to the point about GPSG, it has been described as the result of an "unholy marriage of Bresnan and Montague", and had its start with a couple of papers by Gerald Gazdar in '81 and '82. > Chomsky would argue that a sentence is the proper place for doing work > in Linguistics (syntax ?). He would also say that sentences that seem > gramatical in a certain context are really syntactically ungrammatical, > but pragmatically correct. Or something on that line of thought. > Chomsky would argue that a sentence is the proper place for doing work > in Linguistics (syntax ?). He would also say that sentences that seem > gramatical in a certain context are really syntactically ungrammatical, > but pragmatically correct. Or something on that line of thought. > What I am interested in, is any references or any thoughts (specific > examples) on this topic. I am not sure that I understand what you are asking here. Chomsky talks about what is called the competance/performance distinction. While many people who attack generative syntax attack this working hypothesis, only a few people in sociolinguistics have presented any alternative. For the most part, both generativists and anti-generativists make this distinction. Generativists do it overtly, that is all. But to get back to your original question, there are linguists who look a things larger then the sentence. It is not clear that there are linguistically definable units at those larger levels, thus making the sentence the largest unit that one can really try to say things about. But just because there aren't larger units doesn't mean that there is nothing for linguists to discover at what is called "the discourse level". It is a useful thing to look at, and I wish you well with it. > Thanks > mark >-- > edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu > {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards > UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706 Jeff Goldberg ARPA: goldberg@russell.stanford.edu, goldberg@csli.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!ucbvax!russell.stanford.edu!goldberg The Bulgarian team will not assassinate him. The cipher key won't get to Pest. (The preceding two sentence are to annoy various security organizations. Create your own.)