DOCSLIB.ORG

Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion Into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion Into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant SANDIA REPORT SAND92–1382 ● UC–721 Unlimited Release Printed November 1993 Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Kathleen M. Trauth, Stephen C. Hera, Robert V. Guzowsti Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 for the United Statea Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO&94AL85000 ______ . ., ,, ,, Issuedby SandiaNationalLaboratories,operatedfortheUnitedStates DepartmentofEnergyby SandiaCorporation. NOTICE Thisreportwaspreparedasanaccountofworksponsoredbyan agencyoftheUnitedStatesGovernment.NeithertheUnitedStatesGovern- ment noranyagencythereof,noranyoftheiremployees,noranyoftheir contractors,subcontractors,ortheiremployees,makesanywarranty,express orimplied,orassumesanylegalliabilityorresponsibilityfortheaccuracy, completeness,or usefulnessof any information,apparatusproduct,or processdisclosed,orrepresentsthatitsusewouldnotinfringeprivately ownedrights.Referencehereintoanyspecificcommercialproduct,process,or serviceby tradename,trademark,manufacturer,or otherwise,doesnot necessarilyconstituteorimplyitaendorsement,recommendation,orfavoring by the UnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereofor any of their contractorsorsubcontractors.The viewsand opinionsexpressedhereindo notnecessarilystateorreflectthoseoftheUnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereoforanyoftheircontractors. PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thisreporthasbeenreproduced directlyfromthebestavailablecopy. AvailabletoDOE andDOE contractorsfrom OfficeofScientificandTechnicalInformation PO BOX 62 Oak Ridge,TN 37831 Pricesavailablefrom(615)576-8401,FTS 626-8401 Availabletothepublicfrom NationalTechnicalInformationService US DepartmentofCommerce 5285PortRoyalRd Springfield,VA 22161 NTIS pricecodes PrintedcopyA15 MicrofichecopyAO1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the individuals who served on the Marker Development Panel. Team A. Dieter G. Ast (Cornell University), Michael Brill (Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation, Inc.), Maureen F. Kaplan (Eastern Research Group, Inc.), Ward H. Goodenough (University of Pennsylvani.a), Frederick J. Newmeyer (University of Washington), and Woodruff T. Sullivan, III (University of Washington). Team B. Victor R. Baker (University of Arizona), Frank D. Drake (University of California at Santa Cruz), Ben R. Finney (University of Hawaii at Manoa) , David B. Givens (American Anthropological Association) , Jon Lomberg (independent artist, designer, and writer), Louis Narens (University of California at Irvine), and Wendell Williams (Case Western Reserve University). Thanks go to members of the Futures Panel who discussed their team’s efforts and recommendations with the Markers panel--Michael Baram (Boston Team), Martin Pasqualetti (Southwest Team), Dan Reicher (Washington A Team), and Maris Vinovskis (Washington B Team). Thanks also go to the Sandia Staff who presented material to the experts--D. Richard Anderson (63f+2), Marilyn Gruebel (Tech Reps, Inc.), Peter Swift (6342), and Wendell Weart (6303). Virginia Gilliland and Molly Minahan (Technical Writers), Debbie Marchand and Hawaii Olmstead (Illustrations), Susan Gill (Technical Editor), Steve Tullar (Production), and Debra Rivard and the Word Processing Department of Tech Reps, Inc. provided support in conducting the meetings and documenting the results. The authors would also like to thank the technical reviewers, Marilyn Gruebel (Tech Reps, Inc.) and Erik Webb (6331) for their useful comments. ii This SAND report was prepared from information presented by a panel of experts expressing judgments about the design and efficacy of markers to deter inadvertent human intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) . Appendices F and G were written by the panelists. The authors consolidated and utilized these appendices in preparing the body of the report. The individual reports are reprinted as received by the project coordinator except for (1) correcting typographical errors, (2) editing for internal format consistency, (3) renumbering, repositioning, and captioning figures, (4) updating the table of contents to be in line with the previous changes, and (5) changing the text in accordance with answers to a number of questions that were addressed to the individual teams about their reports as written. The members of the expert panel reviewed a draft copy of the report and the updated versions of Appendices F and G, and responded to the questions provided. The panel of experts made their judgments based on current (as of November 1991) information from disciplines pertinent to markers and about the WIPP Project itself. A final decision on marker system design and placement will be based on all information that is available to the WIPP Project at the time the decision is made. iii iv 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................)......... 1-1 1.1 Regulatory Requirement for Markers ........................... 1-5 1.2 Background ................................................... 1-8 1.2.1 Future Societies ...................................... 1-8 1.2.2 Marker Development .................................... 1-11 1.3 Purposes of the Study... ..................................... 1-12 2 ORGANIZATION AND METHODOLOGY. ..................................... 2-1 2.1 Using Expert Judgment.. ...................................... 2-1 2.2 Expert-Judgment Panel... ..................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Decision to Use an Expert-Judgment Panel .............. 2-2 2.2.2 Development of the Issue Statement .................... 2-2 2.2.3 Selection of Experts.. ................................ 2-4 2.2.3.1 Nomination Process ........................... 2-4 2.2.3.2 Selection Advisory Committee ................. 2-5 2.2.3.3 Selection of Panel ........................... 2-6 2.2.4 Panel Deliberations. .................................. 2-6 3 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 3-1 3.1 Team A ....................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Basic Premises ........................................ 3-2 3.1.2 Assumptions/Bases ..................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Message Levels and Media. ............................. 3-3 3.1.4 Marker System Components .............................. 3-4 3.1.5 Other Design Requirements ............................. 3-5 3.2 Team B ...................................................... 3-6 3.2.1 Basic Premises ........................................ 3-6 3.2.2 Assumptions/Bases ..................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Message Levels and Media. ............................. 3-8 3.2.4 Marker System Components .............................. 3-9 4 PRINCIPLES OFFING... .......................................... 4-1 4.1 Architectural-Design Principles .............................. 4-1 v Contents 4.2 Linguisti.cPrinci.pies. ....................................... 4-5 4.3 Material-Properties Principles ............................... 4-5 4.4 Message-Level Principles ..................................... 4-6 5 PROBABILITY ELICITATION. .......................................... 5-1 5.1 Persistence of Markers ....................................... 5-1 5.2 Interpretability of Messages ................................. 5-2 5.3 Conclusions and Implementation. .............................. 5-9 6 REFERENCES ........................................................ 6-1 Appendix A: Issue Statement for the Development of Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................... A-1 Appendix B: Letter Requesting Nominations ............................. B-1 Appendix C: List of Those to Whom Requests for Nominations Were Sent.. c-1 Appendix D: Letter to Nominees. ....................................... D-1 Appendix E: Expert Panel Selection Criteria ........................... E-1 Appendix F: Team A Report: Marking the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for 10,000 Years .......................................... F-1 Appendix G: Team B Report: The Development of Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIMP) ........................................ G-1 vi Contents Figures 1-1 WIPP location map.... ............................................ 1-2 1-2 Proposed WIPP repository, showing both TRU-waste disposal areas and experimental areas ........................................... 1-3 1-3 Generalized WIPPstratigraphy. ................................... 1-4 1-4 Artist’s concept of the WIPP disposal system showing the controlled area and accessible environment for 40 CFR 191, Subpart B, and the repository/shaft system ....................... 1-7 Tables 2-1 Marker Development Panel ......................................... 2-7 4-1 Marker System Components ......................................... 4-2 5-1 Probabilities of the Marker System Persisting - Team A ........... 5-2 5-2 Consensus Probabilities of the Marker System Persisting - Team B ........................................................... 5-3 5-3 Probability of Correct Interpretation of Message--Drilling for Water as Mode of Intrusion. ...................................... 5-4 5-4 Probability of Correct Interpretation of Message--Mineral Exploration as Mode of Intrusion ................................. 5-5 5-5 Probability of Correct Interpretation of Message--Drilling for Disposal Wells as Mode of Intrusion .............................. 5-6 5-6 Probability of Correct Interpretation of Message--Archaeological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Is Language Typology Possible?
    Why is language typology possible? Martin Haspelmath 1 Languages are incomparable Each language has its own system. Each language has its own categories. Each language is a world of its own. 2 Or are all languages like Latin? nominative the book genitive of the book dative to the book accusative the book ablative from the book 3 Or are all languages like English? 4 How could languages be compared? If languages are so different: What could be possible tertia comparationis (= entities that are identical across comparanda and thus permit comparison)? 5 Three approaches • Indeed, language typology is impossible (non- aprioristic structuralism) • Typology is possible based on cross-linguistic categories (aprioristic generativism) • Typology is possible without cross-linguistic categories (non-aprioristic typology) 6 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Franz Boas (1858-1942) The categories chosen for description in the Handbook “depend entirely on the inner form of each language...” Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to The Handbook of American Indian Languages. 7 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) “dans la langue il n’y a que des différences...” (In a language there are only differences) i.e. all categories are determined by the ways in which they differ from other categories, and each language has different ways of cutting up the sound space and the meaning space de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. 8 Example: Datives across languages cf. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison 9 Example: Datives across languages 10 Example: Datives across languages 11 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Peter H. Matthews (University of Cambridge) Matthews 1997:199: "To ask whether a language 'has' some category is...to ask a fairly sophisticated question..
    [Show full text]
  • ED332504.Pdf
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 332 504 FL 018 885 AUTHOR Davison, Alice, Ed.; Eckert, Penelope, Ed. TITLE Women in the Linguistics Profession: The Cornell Lectures. Conference on Women in Linguistics (Ithaca, New York, June 1989). INSTITUTION Linguirtic Society of America, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 90 CONTRACT NSF-88-00534 NOTE 268p.; Produced by the Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics. PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Administrator Attitudes; *Cultural Isolation; Deans; Doctoral Dissertations; *Employment Patterns; English Departments; *Females; Graduate Study; Higher Education; :,;tellectual Disciplines; *Linguistics; Mentors; Scnolarship; *Sex Bias; F.exual Harassment; Tenure; Trend Analysis; *Women Fulty; Work Environment ABSTRACT Papers on women in linguistics are presented in five groups. An introductory section contains: "Feminist Linguistics:A Whirlwind Tour"; "Women in Linguistics: The Legacy of Institutionalization"; "Reflections on Women in Linguistics";and "The Structure of the Field and Its Consequences forWomen." Papers on trends and data include: "The Status of Women in Linguistics"; "The Representation of Women in Linguistics, 1989"; and"Women in Linguistics: Recent Trends." A section on problems and theirsources includes: "How Dick and Jane Got Tenure: Women and UniversityCulture 1989"; "Success and Failure: Expectations andAttributions"; "Personal and Professional Networks"; "Sexual Harassmentand the University
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes
    Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes Address: Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/ Telephone: (310) 825-9507 (office) (310) 825-0634 (Linguistics Dept.) Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976-1980, Ph.D., Linguistics Harvard University, 1973-1976, B.A. cum laude, Linguistics and Applied Mathematics Employment Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 2012- history: Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1989- Associate Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1985-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1981-1985 Lecturer, Dept. of Linguistics, Yale University, 1980-1981 UCLA Linguistics 1 “Introduction to Language” courses Linguistics 20 “Introduction to Linguistics” taught: Linguistics 88B “Linguistics and Verse Structure” Linguistics 103 “Introduction to General Phonetics” Linguistics 120A “Phonology I” Linguistics 191 “Metrics” Linguistics 200A “Phonological Theory I” Linguistics 201 “Phonological Theory II” Linguistics 205 “Morphology” Linguistics 210 “Field Methods” (with Paul Schachter) Linguistics 251 “The Phonology of Syllables and Stress” Linguistics 251 “CV Phonology” Linguistics 251 “The Metrical Theory of Stress” Linguistics 251 “Lexical Phonology” Linguistics 251 “Segment Structure” Linguistics 251 “The Syntax-Phonology Interface” Linguistics 251 “Phonetic Rules” Linguistics 251 “Intonation” Linguistics 251 “Metrics” Linguistics 251 “Phonetically-Driven Optimality-Theoretic Phonology”
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Functionalist Linguistics: Usage-Based Explanations of Language Structure
    MARTIN HASPELMATH, 15 July 1. Functionalist linguistics: usage-based explanations of language structure 1. What is functionalism? prototypical representatives of "functionalism" in my sense: general: Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990, Paul 1880/1920 syntax: Givón 1984-90, Hawkins 1994, Croft 2001 morphology: Bybee 1985 phonology: Lindblom 1986, Bybee 2001 non-prototypical representatives: Foley & Van Valin 1984, Langacker 1987-91, Dik 1997 fundamental question: Why is language structure the way it is? not: How can language be acquired despite the poverty of the stimulus? primary answer: Language structure (= competence) is the way it is because it reflects constraints on language use (= performance). typically this means: because it is adapted to the needs of language users main problem: H ow can language structure "reflect" language use? There must be an evolutionary/adaptive process, perhaps involving variation and selection. 2. Two examples (A) Vowel systems: The great majority of languages have "triangular" vowel systems as in (1a) or (1b). "Horizontal" or "vertical" systems as in (2a-b) are logically perfectly possible, but unattested. (1) a. [i] [u] b. [i] [u] [a] [e] [o] [a] (2) a. [i] [I] [u] b. [I] [´] [a] This reflects a phonetic constraint on language use: Vowels should be easily distinguishable, and phonetic research has shown that [i], [u], and [a] are the three extremes in the available vowel space (e.g. Lindblom 1986). 1 (B) Implicit infinitival subjects: In many languages, the subject of certain types of complement clauses can be left unexpressed only when it is coreferential with a matrix argument: (3) a. Roberti wants [Øi/*j to arrive in time].
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction1
    1. Introduction1 Jeff Good University at Buffalo 1 Diachrony, synchrony, explanation, and universals Certain grammatical patterns are found again and again in the languages of the world. Some of these patterns recur so frequently that they are given the label “universal”. Explaining the source of such patterns is clearly an important goal of linguistics, but how to go about doing this is not obvious. Problems range from the terminological (what sort of patterns should we consider universal?) to the methodological (what kind of explanation will we accept as sufficient?) to the theoretical (what role does a universal grammar have in shaping recurrent patterns? what role do functional considerations play?). How one answers one of these questions will affect how one answers the others. Can probabilistic generalizations be considered universals? If so, then we need explanations predicting probabilistic patterns. Are we looking for proximate explanations (for example, “language A shows pattern X because it inherited it from its parent language”) or ultimate ones (for example, “language A shows pattern X because only this pattern is permitted by Universal Grammar”)? Will we assume there is no such thing as Universal Grammar? Then, of course, we cannot appeal to it for any sort of explanation. Will we assume there is such a thing? Then, what is its precise structure?2 The papers in this volume are concerned, in one way or another, with both the general problem of explaining recurrent grammatical patterns and the more particular problem of trying to understand what the relationship is between these patterns and language change. Since languages are simultaneously products of history and entities existing at particular times, it seems clear that both diachrony and synchrony have a role to play in explaining the existence of 1 “universals”, but where the division of labor lies between the two is contentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University Of
    Bibliography: Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University of Utah The bibliography below is a compilation in progress. Please notify the author of any additions, at [email protected]. Anttila, Arto and Young-mee Yu Cho. 1998. Variation and Change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31-56. Baerman, Matthew. 1998. The Evolution of Prosodic Constraints in Macedonian. Lingua 104: 57-78. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 1996. Stress and quantity in Old and early Middle English: Evidence for an optimality-theoretic model of language change. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 136-0996. -----. 1998. Prosodic optimization: the Middle English length adjustment. English Language and Linguistics 2: 169-197. -----. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Bethin, Christina. 1998. Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Billings, Loren A. 1996. Sandhi phenomena and language change. Interfaces in Phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), 60-82. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Billings, Loren A. 2000. Review of Bethin (1998). Journal of Linguistics 36: 405-411. Blevins, Juliette. 1997. Rules in Optimality Theory: Two Case Studies. Derivations and Constraints in Optimality Theory, Iggy Roca (ed.), 227-260. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Sound change in Functional Phonology. Chapter 17 of Functional Phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Gess, Randall. 1996. Optimality Theory in the Historical Phonology of French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. -----. 1998a. Alignment and sonority in the syllable structure of Late Latin and Gallo-Romance. Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages, José Lema and Esthela Treviño (eds.), 193-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Ruette Looks at the Linguistic War from Fifty Years Ago, and the Situation Now a Battle Not the War
    Feature Linguistic wars Noam Chomsky in the 1960s Tom Ruette looks at The Linguistic War from fifty years ago, and the situation now A battle not the war Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 29 Feature Linguistic wars uring the sixties “Chomsky proposed noun the shooting. Now, a quick and seventies, a reader will have noticed that fierce linguistic a psychologically the shooting of the hunters could war was fought much richer and also be a transformation of the in the United hunters are being shot. In that States over more attractive sentence, it is, quite unnervingly, Dthe position of ‘meaning’ in perspective on somebody else who is shooting at the linguistic system. Names the hunters! The shooting of the were called, voices were raised, linguistic behavior. hunters thus has two meanings: it indecent example sentences were He stated that is ambiguous. Chomsky elegantly given, and linguists assumed explained how language users invective pseudonyms and phrases can be can disambiguate the shooting of affiliations. This is the story of a elegantly derived the hunters by applying different not-so-typical academic dispute, transformations that result in the a linguistic dogfight that lasted from each other unambiguous phrases the hunters for more than ten years, fought by means of shoot and the hunters are being high up in the ivory towers of shot. The University. ‘transformations’, Relating transformations We start our story with with meaning was a central Noam Chomsky shaking and that these topic of Chomsky’s 1965 book up the linguistic field with transformations Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavic Generative Syntax*
    John Frederick Bailyn SUNY at Stony Brook Slavic Generative Syntax* "Language and its use have been studied from varied points of view. One approach, assumed here, takes language to be part of the natural world."1 1. Introduction The emphasis and consequences of research in generative syntax has changed dramatically in the recent past with the advent of Chomsky's 1993 "Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory", and the implications for the future of Slavic syntax are significant. Under Minimalism, perhaps for the first time in the almost 50 year history of generative syntax, the primary issue of theoretical importance concerns the motivation rather than simply the mechanics of linguistic computational processes. On this view, linguistic expressions are determined by cognitive output conditions involving the interfaces with the conceptual portion of the mind (the Logical Form interface) and the acoustic/perceptual portion (the Phonetic Form interface), and, in strongest form, nothing else. That is, all expressions result in a PF, LF representational pair, whose derivational history meets simplicity ("economy") conditions, indicating that human language may be a highly non-redundant system. If true, this would be a startling result for a biological system, and therefore a highly important hypothesis to examine critically, using careful empirical testing and analysis. The Slavic languages are thus thrust into the spotlight *This article is a revised version of the original 2000 article that appeared as part of the SlavLing 2000 project. The additional 15 pages is almost entirely a result of having tried to provide a somewhat complete bibliography of relevant work, especially outside what formal Slavists might normally be exposed to.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Generativists' Multipronged
    DISCUSSION NOTE Getting the word out: The early generativists’ multipronged efforts to diffuse their ideas Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington , University of British Columbia , and Simon Fraser University This discussion note revolves around the early days of generative grammar, that is to say the late 1950s and the 1960s. A number of commentators have claimed that MIT linguists in this pe - riod formed an elitist in-group, talking only to each other by means of inaccessible ‘underground’ publications and thereby erecting a barrier between themselves and the outside world of linguis - tics. I attempt to refute such claims. We see that the early generativists used every means at their disposal at the time to diffuse their ideas: publishing single-authored books, journal articles, an - thology chapters, and technical reports; aiding the writing of textbooks; giving conference talks; teaching at LSA (Linguistic Society of America) Institutes; and hosting numerous visitors to MIT. And in particular, there was no significant ‘underground’ literature to obstruct the acceptance of the new theory.* Keywords : history of linguistics, generative grammar, MIT, Noam Chomsky, underground literature 1. Introduction . As early as 1964 a commentator had written: ‘[T]ransformational grammar has established itself as the reference point for discussion of linguistic theory … it remains the case that it has been Chomsky who has effectively opened the Ameri - can linguistic scene to its present free and fruitful discussion’ ( Hymes 1964 :25). A year later, there was talk of a ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in the field ( Bach 1965b :111–12, Levin 1965 :92, Thorne 1965 :74). 1 How did the theory of transformational-generative grammar succeed so rapidly, that is, in seven or eight years after the publication of Syn - tactic structures (Chomsky 1957 )? The most important reason by far is that a wide spectrum of the linguistic community found the theory to be either correct or on the right track (for extensive discussion, see Newmeyer 1986 :Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Where, If Anywhere, Are Parameters? a Critical Historical Overview of Parametric Theory Frederick J
    Chapter 25 Where, if anywhere, are parameters? A critical historical overview of parametric theory Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University Since the late 1970s, crosslinguistic variation has generally been handled by means of UG- specified parameters. On the positive side, thinking of variation in terms of parameterized principles unleashed an unprecedented amount of work in comparative syntax, leading to the discovery of heretofore unknown morphosyntactic phenomena and crosslinguistic gen- eralizations pertaining to them. On the negative side, however, both macroparameters and microparameters have proven themselves to be empirically inadequate and conceptually nonminimalist. Alternatives to parameters are grounded approaches, epigenetic approaches, and reductionist approaches, the last two of which seem both empirically and conceptually quite promising. 1 Introduction The existence of crosslinguistic variation has always been problematic for syntacticians. If there is a universal grammar, one might ask, then why aren’t all languages exactly the same? In the earliest work in generative syntax, characterizing the space in which languages could differ, whether at the surface or at a deep level, was not a priority. At the time, surface differences between languages and dialects were generally attributed to language-particular rules or filters. In the late 1970s, however, a strategy was developed that allowed the simultaneous development of a rich theory of Universal Grammar (UG) along with a detailed account of the limits of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic variation. In this view, syntactic com- plexity results from the interaction of grammatical subsystems, each characterizable in terms of its own set of general principles. The central goal of syntactic theory now be- came to identify such systems and to characterize the degree to which they might vary (be “parameterized”) from language to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Knowledge, Public Tensions
    PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS by Janet Nielsen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Janet Nielsen () Abstract PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS Doctor of Philosophy () Janet Nielsen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto Propelled by a desire to understand natural language, American linguists of the post- war period brought the tools of the era to bear on the study of syntax: computer science, mathematical graph theory, and even Cold War strategy. Three syntactic theories were enunciated, each trying to untangle the mysteries of our ability to form and use sentences. These theories interacted on a nearly daily basis, influencing and challenging each other through the s. By the end of the decade, one had established clear dominance: Noam Chomsky’s theory, developed at . Combining contemporary history of science tools with linguistics-specific concepts, this study explores the dynamics of the syntactic theory- choice debates from to . I argue that these debates can only be fully understood through a confluence of four themes: explanation, pedagogy, knowledge transmission, and lay linguistics. Together, these themes explain how linguists selected and evaluated theories, how students were trained to think about and use syntax,
    [Show full text]
  • Naahols Newsletter 56 (Fall 2013)
    Number 56 Fall 2013 NAAHoLS NEWSLETTER The North American Association for the History of the Language Sciences NAAHoLS at LSA INSIDE… The 2014 NAAHoLS annual meeting will again be held in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of 2014 Annual America, the American Dialect Society, the American Meeting to be held Name Society, the Society for the Study of the Indigenous in Minneapolis! Languages of the Americas, and the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Plenary speakers this year include Susan Goldin-Meadow (University of Chicago), NAAHoLS 2014 Richard Larson (Stoney Brook University), and Ellen program/abstracts Kaisse (University of Washington). The meeting will take place in Minneapolis, Accommodation Minnesota, between 2-5 January, 2014. Further details and registration about the meeting are provided in this edition of the information newsletter. We are excited about this year’s schedule of presentations, and we hope to see you in Minneapolis! This year’s NAAHoLS program will take place at Recent publications the Minneapolis Hilton, during the afternoon on Friday (3 January), and all day on Saturday (4 January). 2013 Membership Dues Form The annual NAAHoLS Business Meeting will be held at 11:00 a m on Saturday (4 January). If there are any items you wish to place on the meeting agenda, please let us know in advance. For further information, contact: David Boe, Department of English, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855; (906) 227-2677; [email protected] President Secretary/Treasurer Brian D. Joseph David Boe Department
    [Show full text]