sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn) (04/10/90)
> (Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes: > When you think, don't you "talk > >to yourself" -- primarily in _English_? But enough of that. > (Ken Presting) writes: > When I think in words, it's > usually with some particular listener in mind. I seldom think in terms > of text arranged on a page or screen, or in the form of a conversation > with myself. But I do think that *any* public activity can serve as > a model for internal representations. How (potential) listeners fit > into the picture is puzzling. Perhaps not so puzzling if we propose that the internal representations of language use (modeled on remembered conversations) also contain context markers, and if we consider that "style" is part of language context (which I think it must be). I'm using "style" to denote characterizable sets of relationships in language usage such as word choice, length of sentences, inclusion or lack of extended metaphors, etc. The Balinese have a very elaborate system of social interchange which regulates word usage based on whom the person will be talking to. Long silences can ensue when two strangers meet if they can't discern from context what "rank" of person they've got there. Sentences as words-strung-together-according-to-syntax is too simplistic a conception of language, in my view. Communication is entangled in many levels in human speech, and I have no problem with the idea that more than just the words-and-syntax are represented in language memory -- or IMO, represented in the processing functions (input or output) themselves. I heard Jerry Fodor give a seminar today advocating a modular theory of speech recognition. He was selling a sentence parser which structured input based only on grammatical rules; he radically isolated his parser from contextual inferences -- a rash stance, I think (but if you see connectionism as the plague...) -- Nature, who's a very old hand at maintaining viable organizations, is a profligate user of redundancy, and makes good use of context as valuable info..... An illuminating point, Ken -- glad you brought it up. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandra Zinn | "The squirming facts (yep these are my ideas | exceed the squamous mind" they only own my kybd) | -- Wallace Stevens
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (04/10/90)
From article <370@ntpdvp1.UUCP>, by sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn): > >The Balinese have a very elaborate system of social interchange which >regulates word usage based on whom the person will be talking to. ... >Sentences as words-strung-together-according-to-syntax is too simplistic >a conception of language, in my view. ... So if you're interested in conversations rather than just sentences, make that conversations as words-strung-together-according-to-syntax. By noting that sentence syntax does not in itself suffice to describe conversations, you have not shown that describing conversations requires bringing in non-syntactic principles that were not required for sentences. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) (04/11/90)
In article <7221@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <370@ntpdvp1.UUCP>, by sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn): >> >>The Balinese have a very elaborate system of social interchange which >>regulates word usage based on whom the person will be talking to. ... >>Sentences as words-strung-together-according-to-syntax is too simplistic >>a conception of language, in my view. ... > >So if you're interested in conversations rather than just sentences, >make that conversations as words-strung-together-according-to-syntax. >By noting that sentence syntax does not in itself suffice to describe >conversations, you have not shown that describing conversations requires >bringing in non-syntactic principles that were not required for >sentences. I agree with Greg about the potential of applying syntax to structures larger than the sentence, but that will not be enough. The Balinese example shows that a variety of syntactical principles are available for use by the speakers, and that the choice of one or the other is determined non-linguistic information about the context. The point can be strengthened by noting the role of the context of an utterance in Davidson's radical interpretation. On one hand, it is clearlytrue that the syntax of a language can be specified independently of its semantics and pragmatics. On the other, it is equally clear that when the linguistic behavior of a population is studied, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features of the language are observed simultaneously with the practical exigencies of non-linguistic life. The data which supports a particular syntactic theory for a language may be based exclusively on sentence-acceptance, or conversation-acceptance. But for the investigator to be able to put his questions to the native speakers, their language must be learned, which requires a context dependent radical interpretation. Ken Presting
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (04/13/90)
From article <66tJ025u9b3u01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, by kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting): >But for the investigator to be able to put his questions to the native >speakers, their language must be learned, which requires a context >dependent radical interpretation. Except on a very literal level, there is essentially no truth to this. The native speakers may know or be taught the investigator's language, or the investigator may be a native speaker. As a practical matter, if one's interest is in a language whose conversational aspects are very different from one's own, teaching native speakers linguistics has a lot to recommend it -- then they can devise the theories and put the questions. In any case, as a demonstration of the crucial importance of non-linguistic context to language learning, understanding, or analysis, this just doesn't make it. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu