nl-kr-request@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (NL-KR Moderator Brad Miller) (11/03/88)
NL-KR Digest (11/03/88 00:12:12) Volume 5 Number 24
Today's Topics:
Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
more about the syntactic definition...
Re: best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
CFGs/CFLs, G/HPSG
Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 88 15:43 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
From article <14810@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
"
" Besides, don't you find a contradiction between the Equivalence
" Constraint (segments at both sides of the switch must be
" equivalent) and the Free Morpheme Constraint, which operates on
" the surface structure? Both English and Spanish show a perfect
" equivalence in
" VP
" / \
" / \
" / \
" Aux V
" / \ |
" / \ |
" estoy -iendo comer
" am -ing eat
"
" but 'estoy EATING' is, in my view, an acceptable switch,
" while 'estoy EATiendo' is not
The assumption being that the Equivalence Constraint pertains
to a deep structure of the sort supposed in Syntactic Structure,
I gather. Yes, I see the problem. I don't believe that analysis
of Chomsky's any more, though, personally.
" But you do find acceptable switches of the type 'PA(RA) QUE she could
" come with me' (not a literal quote) in Poplack's data and others'.
Oh. Then my theory is wrong.
" >Extending to the case of multiple styles of a single language,
" >one might think of sentences introduced by "well now," which
" >is relatively informal, as being due to a rule: 'Compose
" >well now and a clause'. Then the clause should be relatively
" >informal, also.
"
" I think you are including pragmatic considerations here.
Right. Pragmatic facts, though not pragmatic theory.
" >I wouldn't assume that the appropriate constraints are pragmatic,
" >necessarily.
"
" But you do include pragmatic considerations in your discussion
" of monolingual style-shifting (the composition of "well now" +
""relatively informal" sentence).
Well, what's a "pragmatic consideration"? A fact concerning the
relationship between the expressions used in a conversation and the
participants who use the expressions? Or a theoretical assumption about
this relationship. I would be interested to see what pragmatic facts
can be described without appeal to pragmatic theories. I don't
think it's reasonable to suppose in advance that the answer is 'none',
though it might turn out that way.
" You may want to check ...
Thanks for the references.
" ...
" Conceived as such, this grammar would generate not only
""valid switches" but "monolingual sentences as well" (:36).
" My (almost metaphysical) question to this approach is, where
" are the two distinct systems then? Where are the switches?
Weren't you decrying the assumption that there was a distinction
in principle between code-switching and style-shifting just
a short time ago? Aren't you disagreeing with yourself now?
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 21:24 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
In article <2503@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <14810@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
>
>" But you do include pragmatic considerations in your discussion
>" of monolingual style-shifting (the composition of "well now" +
>""relatively informal" sentence).
>
>Well, what's a "pragmatic consideration"? A fact concerning the
>relationship between the expressions used in a conversation and the
>participants who use the expressions?
I would say it is a fact concerning the situated interpretation
of utterances both in terms of their propositional content and their
socio-interactional meanings. I don't think that a theory which
incorporates pragmatic facts should be concerned with the relationships
between speech forms and 'participants' as such, but participants as
components of (i.e. holding specific roles within) a situation of talk.
I guess this is what you meant.
>Or a theoretical assumption about this relationship?
I think that in order to incorporate successfully some types of
data of behavior (pragmatic facts) in the study of speech, one has
to work under certain theoretical assumptions (perhaps not necessarily
a full-fledged theory) about what those facts do for, and how
they affect speech production. In your example, the assumption is that
'formality' and 'informality' are socio-interactionally constructed
notions which affect the way one perceives some attributes of one's or
others' linguistic behavior -- in other words, the interactants'
sociolinguistic knowledge (or communicative competence) in some way
would include a categorization of situations of talk along the
formal-informal continuum. The hypothesis is that situational
constraints based on the interactionally-negotiated level of formality
of the interaction can be found to govern some types of code-switches.
>" Conceived as such, [Sankoff & Poplack's] grammar would generate not only
>""valid switches" but "monolingual sentences as well" (:36).
>" My (almost metaphysical) question to this approach is, where
>" are the two distinct systems then? Where are the switches?
>
>Weren't you decrying the assumption that there was a distinction
>in principle between code-switching and style-shifting just
>a short time ago? Aren't you disagreeing with yourself now?
Not really. What I'm trying to say is that, if/when both
'monolingual' and 'code-switched' utterances are generated by a
single grammar, then the styles/'languages' which comprise the
repertoire of speakers of such a grammar form part of a single
linguistic system. Therefore, there are no 'language switches'
(as opposed to 'monolingual utterances').
Celso Alvarez (sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 88 08:24 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
From article <15958@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
" ...
" socio-interactional meanings. I don't think that a theory which
" incorporates pragmatic facts should be concerned with the relationships
" between speech forms and 'participants' as such, but participants as
" components of (i.e. holding specific roles within) a situation of talk.
" I guess this is what you meant.
Well, whatever. I find it difficult to become interested in terminological
points. Except I do think we ought to make a distinction between 'predict'
and 'incorporate'. I was saying that a theory which predicts pragmatic facts
need not contain pragmatic assumptions. If you think the relationship
between theory and fact is one of inclusion, no wonder my point was lost.
" ...
" I think that in order to incorporate successfully some types of
" data of behavior (pragmatic facts) in the study of speech, one has
" ...
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 03:07 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
In article <2527@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <15958@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
CA>I don't think that a theory which incorporates pragmatic facts should
CA>be concerned with the relationships between speech forms and
CA>'participants' as such, but participants as components of (i.e.
CA>holding specific roles within) a situation of talk.
CA>I guess this is what you meant.
GL>Well, whatever. I find it difficult to become interested in terminological
GL>points.
If you think that this is only an unproductive terminological point,
well (and let me use your own words), no wonder you are missing *my*
point. Of course the distinction 'participant as an individual' /
'participant as a component of the speech situation in terms of
roles, status, etc.' is a terminological one. But it is, I think,
of extreme theoretical importance for a pragmatic-sociointeractional
analysis. This is clear in Brown and Fraser's (1979) chapter on
"Speech as a marker in situation", in K.R. Sherer and H. Giles (eds.)
_Social_Markers_in_Speech_, Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-62.
GL>Except I do think we ought to make a distinction between 'predict'
GL>and 'incorporate'. I was saying that a theory which predicts pragmatic facts
GL>need not contain pragmatic assumptions. If you think the relationship
GL>between theory and fact is one of inclusion, no wonder my point was lost.
No, I don't think that relationship is one of inclusion. All I was
saying is that if you make reference to/include (that was my meaning of
incorporate) so-called non-linguistic facts (e.g. degree of formality of
the interaction or utterance), and if you indeed choose to make use of a
category such as 'formal' vs. 'informal', you better know why you're
doing it. And, yes, I think you need some assumptions here. In the
case of code-switching, you can attempt to predict the production of
code-switched utterances which, if you succeed in your prediction, may
be understood (by others) as primarily governed by non-linguistic
factors ('formality'); and you may attempt to establish your prediction
*without* reference to non-linguistic variables. (I personally don't
think you would succeed, though). But as soon as you include a
discussion of the effects of those variables on speech production (that
is, as soon as your model contains non-linguistic facts as well), then,
yes, I think you need to have some assumptions about the relationships
between speech forms and speech situation. That's what I meant.
Are our respective 'wavelengths' closer now, or not quite so? At
least, is my point clearer?
Celso Alvarez (sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 88 23:37 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
From article <16063@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
" think you would succeed, though). But as soon as you include a
" discussion of the effects of those variables on speech production (that
" is, as soon as your model contains non-linguistic facts as well), then,
" yes, I think you need to have some assumptions about the relationships
" between speech forms and speech situation. That's what I meant.
You mean you'd need to know/assume something about pragmatics in order
to tell whether the theory's predictions are correct. Right? As a
physical scientist may need to know about instrumentation, though he is
testing a theory having nothing to to with instrumentation per se.
" Are our respective 'wavelengths' closer now, or not quite so? At
" least, is my point clearer?
Maybe. In my interpretation, you now agree with me.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 88 04:03 EST
From: Celso Alvarez <sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Grammar and Code-Switching [WAS: Re: Language Spread...]
In article <2539@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
(Greg Lee) writes:
>"as soon as your model contains non-linguistic facts as well, then,
>" yes, I think you need to have some assumptions about the relationships
>" between speech forms and speech situation. That's what I meant.
>
>You mean you'd need to know/assume something about pragmatics in order
>to tell whether the theory's predictions are correct. Right? As a
>physical scientist may need to know about instrumentation, though he is
>testing a theory having nothing to to with instrumentation per se.
>
>In my interpretation, you now agree with me.
Yes, I meant that, but I'm not sure your comparison is appropriate.
Perhaps I should have emphasized the fact that
in some cases pragmatic/sociointeractional facts are the key to the
theory. Let me give you an example: only pragmatic and socio-interactional
facts can explain the differences in illocutionary force between two
propositionally equivalent code-switched sentences, as interpreted by
speakers in a bilingual context:
He ordered me que me callara
Me ordeno' to shut up
Gumperz (_Discourse_Strategies_) argues similarly with other examples.
If one wishes to write a single grammar that can generate both sentences,
one has to be ready to give account of the fact that they, somehow,
don't carry the same meanings for speakers.
That's why I'm not sure your comparison is appropriate: pragmatic facts
are *not* to syntactic facts what instruments are to physical phenomena.
Celso Alvarez
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 13:27 EDT
From: who <rolandi@gollum.UUCP>
Subject: best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
>" Such efforts more or less met with utter and complete defeat in the late
>" 50's and 60's. Indeed so much so that some people working in understanding
>
>Context free phrase structure grammar lives! It's the basis of the
>best current theory of syntax, GPSG -- Generalized Phrase Structure
>Grammar.
> Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
What does "best" mean in this statement? How can you tell if one theory of
syntax is better than another?
Walter Rolandi
rolandi@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM
NCR Advanced Systems Development, Columbia, SC
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 88 08:46 EDT
From: Jay Kim <jkim@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: more about the syntactic definition...
This is a correction to my previous posting.
I misread CFL as CFG, thus if Clay meant that CFL is not a device
to describe a language, then the apology is on me.
However, by any chance, if Clay meant that CFG is not an adequate
device to describe a natural language, I would like to hear more
about this.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 88 09:05 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
From article <159@gollum.UUCP>, by rolandi@gollum.UUCP (who):
" >Context free phrase structure grammar lives! It's the basis of the
" >best current theory of syntax, GPSG -- Generalized Phrase Structure
" >Grammar.
"
" What does "best" mean in this statement? How can you tell if one theory of
" syntax is better than another?
By comparing predictions. How else?
GPSG (and context free PSG, for that matter) predicts that there must be
constraints on removing constituents from constituents from which
something has been removed. Apparently, there are. Ross's complex noun
phrase constraint, e.g., prevents removing a noun phrase from a clause
from which a noun phrase corresponding to the relative pronoun (in
English) has been removed.
The reason this prediction is made is that a constituent from which
something has been removed must be assigned a different category from
that of a corresponding constituent from which the thing is not removed
(to ensure the removed thing does not appear). If there were no
constraints, this would give rise to an infinite number of categories
and an infinite number of rules, contrary to a basic constraint in
context free phrase structure grammar (and other theories).
For instance, if it were not for the complex noun phrase constraint,
there would be categories: clause, relative clause, relativized
relative clause, relativized relativized relative clause, and so on,
ad infinitum.
Supposing that only like categories can be conjoined, this also predicts
that a relative clause cannot be conjoined with an ordinary clause (cf.
Ross's coordinate structure constraint), but that two relative clauses
can be conjoined (cf. Ross's across-the-board condition).
Gerald Gazdar noticed these things. Neat, huh? The constraints
can be expressed in other theories, but not predicted.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 88 09:00 EDT
From: Clay M Bond <bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: CFGs/CFLs, G/HPSG
Jay Kim:
>I misread CFL as CFG, thus if Clay meant that CFL is not a device
>to describe a language, then the apology is on me.
Exactly. No need to apologize; you obviously know that a grammar,
not a language, describes a language.
Rick Wojcik:
> [ question for G. Lee: 'Why is GPSG better than HPSG'? ]
though GPSG can take care of English "respecively" constructions with
a (sloppy) hack, it cannot generate context-sensitive constructions such
as the multiple subj-verb dependencies in Swiss German (an admission
from the lips of both Gerald Gazdar and Geoff Pullum at the institute
at Stanford last summer), where HPSG can, easily and without hacking.
After some time of being a die-hard GPSG syntactician I dropped it in
favor of HPSG, for about 150 reasons I won't go into here. (BTW, GKPS
*never* made the claim that all natural language could be generated by
CFGs, only that until proven otherwise they were going to assume it.
They have, by their own admission, been proven wrong, which I find ad-
mirable.)
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Clay Bond, IU Department of Leather er uh, Linguistics >>
<< ARPA: bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu AKA: Le Nouveau Marquis de Sade >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 11:57 EDT
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
In article <2518@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>For instance, if it were not for the complex noun phrase constraint,
>there would be categories: clause, relative clause, relativized
>relative clause, relativized relativized relative clause, and so on,
>ad infinitum.
You base your 'explanation' of the CNPC solely on the argument that
constituents out of which something has been extracted must be
marked to keep them distinct from 'whole' constituents. This seems
reasonable to me, but I wonder why it is any less natural for other
theories to make the same claim. It also bothers me that you give no
thought to nonstructural arguments for the lack of 'relativized relative
clauses', etc. Perhaps such things don't occur because we have no use
for them. I don't buy the assumption that everything which is
structurally possible, ipso facto, should occur in language. People
don't just generate random linguistic patterns when they speak.
The burning issue is: Is my need to produce relativized relative
clauses frustrated by grammatical prophylaxis, or do I just not need to
produce them?
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com
uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 88 13:37 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: best grammars -- was syntactical definitions
From article <8360@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik):
"
" You base your 'explanation' of the CNPC solely on the argument that
" constituents out of which something has been extracted must be
" marked to keep them distinct from 'whole' constituents. This seems
" reasonable to me, but I wonder why it is any less natural for other
" theories to make the same claim.
I was speaking of predictions, not what is 'natural'. If indeed it
is true that there is a category difference between whole constituents
and constituents from which something has been extracted, naturally
any theory could introduce such a distinction ad hoc. This is not
interesting.
" It also bothers me that you give no
" thought to nonstructural arguments for the lack of 'relativized relative
" clauses', etc. Perhaps such things don't occur because we have no use
" for them.
And perhaps you can mount an argument for this, and perhaps you can't.
We'll see. I think you're going to encounter some difficulty with
dialects/languages having resumptive pronouns: 'The man who I met
the girl that knew him ...'
Remember, the case of relative clauses is just one example of the
general principle. Are you prepared to argue that wh-question
words cannot be extracted from a clause from which a wh-question
word has already been extracted becuase we have no use for
question question clauses? (cf. Who did what to who ...?)
" I don't buy the assumption that everything which is
" structurally possible, ipso facto, should occur in language. People
" don't just generate random linguistic patterns when they speak.
There may be counterexamples to this assertion.
" The burning issue is: Is my need to produce relativized relative
" clauses frustrated by grammatical prophylaxis, or do I just not need to
" produce them?
It won't burn for me until you produce a reason for singling out
these particular constructions as not useful. I think functionalist
arguments are the cat's pajamas, but so far this is a little vague.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************