DOCSLIB.ORG

Tom Ruette Looks at the Linguistic War from Fifty Years Ago, and the Situation Now a Battle Not the War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. his revolutionary Syntactic Although it was left somewhat Structures (1957) and his could help us unclear what meaning and paradigm shifting review of BF to understand syntax really have to do with Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1959). each other, one bold claim – the This arousal did not lead to The meaning, i.e. what ‘Katz-Postal Hypothesis’ – stood Linguistic War, which would is being said.” out. The hypothesis states that only start about a decade later, but did bring about the first cognitive revolution in the study of language. The revolution overthrew the prevailing idea in linguistics that a stimulus evokes a response, in the way that the ringing of a bell would cause Pavlov’s dog to drool. Chomsky proposed a psychologically much richer and more attractive perspective on linguistic behavior. He stated that phrases can be elegantly derived from each other by means of ‘transformations’, and that these transformations could help us to Behavioural psychologist BF Skinner. Chomsky’s review of Verbal Behaviour caused a paradigm shift in linguistics understand meaning, i.e. what is being said. a conversion is called a ‘Passive Let’s look at a few examples. Transformation’. The Katz-Postal Hypothesis: First, take a simple active Or take the sentence A transformation from one sentence such as John eats a the hunters shoot. This short sentence to another does sandwich. That sentence can sentence can be transformed not change the meaning; be easily transformed into the into the shooting of the hunters. all transformations of a equivalent passive sentence A This transformation is known sentence have the same sandwich is eaten by John: such as a ‘Nominalization’, since meaning. the verb to shoot becomes the 30 Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 Feature Linguistic wars A Generative Semantic analysis of ‘Matthew killed the bogies’ Sentence Syntax Noun Phrase Verb Phrase Noun Verb Noun Phrase Sentence Matthew killed the bogies Matthew caused to die the bogies Semantics Matthew caused to become dead the bogies MATTHEW CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE BOGIES a transformation from one bottom, which give a perspective Consider the sentences sentence to another shall not on the meaning of the sentence. Many men read few books and change the meaning. In other In this case, the verb ‘to kill’ Few books are read by many men. words, all transformations of a is made increasingly more Although these two sentences sentence must have the same specific by meaning-preserving are transformations of each other meaning. transformations. Four building – just like John eats a sandwich Chomsky left the Katz- blocks of meaning remain: and A sandwich is eaten by John Postal hypothesis as a dangling CAUSE, TO BECOME, NOT and – their meaning is not the same. proposition during a sabbatical ALIVE. In the first sentence, the amount year at Berkeley in 1966. With Haj Ross wrote down the of books may still be large, even Chomsky away, four devoted theory in a 1967 letter to Arnold when each individual man only followers – George Lakoff, Zwicky, and the ideas were reads a few books. In the second Haj Ross, Paul Postal and Jim disseminated to the scientific sentence, the amount of books McCawley – developed a theory community during the ‘Camelot, is very small, and the individual of Generative Semantics 1968’ meeting in Urbana, Illinois. men all read at least the same set by pushing the Katz-Postal The four devoted followers of books. Hypothesis to the extreme. also presented their theory to In the wake of Chomsky’s Chomsky upon his return to attack on Generative Semantics, academic life. However, Chomsky Ray Jackendoff (and others) GENERATIVE SEMANTICS was not happy at all with the formulated the theory of A field of semantics that progress they made. During his Interpretative Semantics, claims that a theory about sabbatical, in contrast to the in which meaning is studied language has a central efforts in Generative Semantics separately from syntax. The component in which meaning to integrate meaning and syntax, theory was presented in and syntax are tightly Chomsky had developed the Jackendoff’s article Semantic interwoven. opposite idea of an autonomous Interpretation in Generative syntactic theory in which Grammar. The central idea of meaning did not play a role. Generative Semantics is The starting point INTERPRETATIVE that meaning-preserving for Chomsky’s idea was a transformations can be used refutation of the Katz-Postal SEMANTICS A theory of semantics in to connect the construction of Hypothesis that transformations which meaning only comes a sentence with unambiguous preserve meaning – a central into play after the words are building blocks of meaning. Let assumption for Generative put together in a syntactic me explain with an example. Semantics, and a hypothesis that structure. As such, syntax Take the sentence Matthew Chomsky himself supported becomes a completely killed the bogies, in the middle of in his 1965 book. Chomsky’s autonomous discipline. the table above. Most linguists counterargument revolves would be quite happy with the around the undeniable fact that syntactic analysis in the first the ‘Passive Transformation’ Now, these are the rows of that table. Generative does not necessarily preserve participants of The Linguistic semanticists, however, insisted meaning. War: two opposing groups on adding more rows at the of fairly young scientists, Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 31 Feature Linguistic wars with Chomsky supporting transformations into an absolute that a grammar should not allow Interpretative Semantics and truth, a dogma of science. for the second sentence, because generative semanticists assuming Another important issue the somewhat childish making the role of the underdog. The for interpretativists was that number 2 is not appropriate year is now 1968, the Vietnam Generative Semantics wanted to in combination with the War is on everybody’s mind, expand the kind of phenomena formality of is generally expedited. revolution is what you do that could be handled by These kinds of usage-related before breakfast, and hippies are grammar. After including phenomena received more and becoming the mainstream. The meaning in grammar, the more attention from Generative atmosphere at The University door of Generative Semantics Semantics, which celebrated grew grim and battle positions now stood open to bring in the difficulty of grasping the were assumed. usage phenomena, such as mysteries of actual language use, At first, the war was appropriateness. Robin Lakoff beyond constructed examples. academically fought in – George Lakoff’s wife – used In contrast, Chomsky tried to publications and during the following example to keep things tidy and clean by conferences. One of the defend the inclusion of usage shunning pragmatics altogether. important battles took place phenomena. More importantly, With ever stronger during the 1969 Texas conference it foreshadowed the adversarial academic polarization between on Goals of Linguistic Theory. tone of the later rows and fights. Generative Semantics and Here, Chomsky and the Sensitive readers may want to Interpretative Semantics, and interpretative semanticists skip this. with a little help from the publicly denounced the idea Take the two similar 1960s-1970s Zeitgeist, a situation that transformations preserve sentences Defecation is generally emerges in which Chomsky meaning. In contrast, Generative expedited by the use of large becomes ‘The Establishment’ Semantics – from then on loudly banana leaves and Making number and Lakoff represents defended by George Lakoff – 2 is generally expedited by the use of ‘Counterculture’. Obviously, turned meaning-preserving large banana leaves. Lakoff claims this simplistic image does not do justice to the truth. Whereas one expects the Counterculture to be the most productive and constructive, it is in fact The Establishment – albeit perhaps inspired and spurred on
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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Structural Signature of Pronouns 1
    The Structural Signature of Pronouns 1 The Structural Signature of Pronouns* Mark Baltin Department of Linguistics New York University New York, New York 10003 [email protected] August 26, 2012 * This work grew out of joint work with Jeroen van Craenenbroeck several years ago, and I have benefited from numerous discussions with him. I am also indebted to Janet Dean Fodor for a very helpful discussion. The Structural Signature of Pronouns 2 The Structural Signature of Pronouns I argue for a definition of pro-form that simply defines the structural configuration into which pro-forms enter: a functional head that lacks an overt complement. This definition allows us to explain why full DPs can convert to pronouns without violating Inclusiveness, and why pro-forms and deletion sites are identical. Essentially, the licensing condition on deletion sites just makes them pro- forms. This definition tells us that , as Postal (1969) analyzed pronouns, their analysis is an essential ingredient of their definition; another analysis of pronouns that did not take them to involve deletion would fail to explain how elements could convert to them without violating Inclusiveness. Figuring out the mechanics of pronoun-conversion allows us to view the nature of garden-variety pronouns, which have intrigued philosophers through the centuries, and this work is intended as a window into the nature of symbolic cognitive architecture. The Structural Signature of Pronouns 3 I. Introduction Modern linguistics is invested with two truisms. The first truism is that we use the object-language, the language that we are attempting to characterize (English, French, Thai, Ewe, etc.) as an approximation for a meta-language, what Chomsky (1986) calls an I(nternal)-Language.
    [Show full text]
  • LANGUAGES and LINGUISTICS Umber 15 • 1962 Edited by E
    Monograph Series on LANGUAGES and LINGUISTICS umber 15 • 1962 edited by E. D. Woodworth and R. J. Di Pietrc Raimonde Dallaire William Gage Paul L Garvin Paul M. Postal Eric P. Hamp, Moderator The Transformation Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages A. Richard Diebold, Jr. Code-Switching in Greek-English Bilingual Speech Einar Haugen Schizoglossia and the Linguistic Norm Colman L O'Huallachain, O.F.M. Bilingualism in Education in Ireland Norman A. McQuown Indian and Ladino Bilingualism: Sociocultural Contrasts in Chiapas, Mexico Fred W. Householder, Jr. Greek Diglossia William G. Moulton What Standard for Diglossia? The Case of German Switzerland William A. Stewart Functional Distribution of Creole and French in Haiti Charles A. Ferguson Problems of Teaching Languages with Diglossia KRAUS REPRINT CO. New York GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 1971 INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS Copyright © 1963 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY PRESS THE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 63-21238 Reprinted with the permission of the original publisher KRAUS REPRINT CO. A U.S. Division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited New York 1971 Printed in U.S.A. REPORT OF THE THIRTEENTH ANNUAL ROUND TABLE MEETING ON LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE STUDIES Elisabeth 3? Wobdworth Editor Robert J. DiJPietro Associate 5 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY PRESS Washington, D. C. 20007 Copyright © 1963 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY PRESS THE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 63-21238 time to time the Institute of Languages and Linguistics, George- town University, 'publishes manu- scripts intended to contribute to the discipline of linguistics and to the study and teaching of languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter : E Role of Morphology in Transformational Grammar
    Chapter : e role of morphology in Transformational Grammar Stephen R. Anderson∗ Dept. of Linguistics, Yale University for e Cambridge Handbook of Morphology Introduction A common view of the history of morphological research within the tradition of Generative Gram- mar, and one that the present author has himself retailed on various occasions, goes as follows. As successors to the American Structuralists, early generative grammarians (especially Noam Chomsky, a student of Zellig Harris) inherited the structuralist theory of the morpheme as a basic component of linguistic expressions. On this picture, morphemes were seen as more or less Saussurean minimal signs: irreducible associations of (phonemic) form with grammatical or semantic content. Chom- sky’s own earlier work on the morphology of Hebrew (Chomsky []) had made it clear to him that in the general case, the relation between morphemes and phonological form was much more complex and abstract than generally assumed in structuralist work, but discrete morphemes were still taken to serve as the link between form and content. Words, and by extension phrases, were to be analyzed as exhaustively composed of these morphemes, organized hierarchically into progressively larger structures. Within Generative Grammar, the two substantive branches of morphological theory were both trivialized. On the one hand, the study of allomorphy, the variation in shape displayed by individual morphemes, was to be largely subsumed under the much broader conception of phonology held by generativists in comparison with their predecessors, leaving little residue beyond the listing of arbitrary, unsystematic and suppletive alternants. On the other hand morphotactics, the study of the combination of morphemes into larger units, was to be seen simply as syntax, with morphemes serving as the terminal nodes of phrase markers.
    [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]
  • Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 17Th Annual Round Table
    Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics Number 19, 1966 edited by F. P. Dinneen, SJ 17th Annual Round Table Georgetown University School of Languages and Linguistics REPORT OF THE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL ROUND TABLE MEETING ON LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE STUDIES FRANCIS P. DINNEEN, S.J. EDITOR GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY PRESS Washington, D.C. 20007 ©Copyright 1966 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY PRESS SCHOOL OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-31607 Lithographed in U.SA. by EDWARDS BROTHERS, INC. Ann Arbor, Michigan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword v WELCOMING REMARKS Rev. Frank L. Fadner, S.J., Regent Institute of Languages and Linguistics vii Robert Lado, Dean Institute of Languages and Linguistics ix I. PROBLEMS IN SEMANTICS John L. Fischer Interrogatives in Ponapean: Some Semantic and Grammatical Aspects 1 Charles J. Fillmore A Proposal Concerning English Prepositions 19 Gerhard Nickel Operational Procedures in Semantics, with Special Reference to Medieval English 35 James B. Fraser Some Remarks on the Verb-Particle Construction in English 45 DISCUSSION 63 II. FIRST LUNCHEON ADDRESS George L. Trager Linguistics as Anthropology 71 IIL HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS Karl V. Teeter The History of Linguistics: New Lamps for Old 83 iv / TABLE OF CONTENTS Hugo Mueller On Re-Reading von Humboldt 97 John Viertel Concepts of Language Underlying the 18th Century Controversy about the Origin of Language 109 Geoffrey Bursill-Hall Aspects of Modistic Grammar 133 DISCUSSION 149 IV. LINGUISTICS AND ENGLISH Stanley Sapon Shaping Productive Verbal Behavior in a Non-Speaking Child: A Case Report 157 Paul M. Postal On So-Called 'Pronouns' in English 177 Terence E.
    [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]