DOCSLIB.ORG

Syntactic Structures and Recursive Devices: a Legacy of Imprecision Author(S): Marcus Tomalin Source: Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Syntactic Structures and Recursive Devices: a Legacy of Imprecision Author(S): Marcus Tomalin Source: Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, Vol Syntactic Structures and Recursive Devices: A Legacy of Imprecision Author(s): Marcus Tomalin Source: Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, Vol. 20, No. 3, MATHEMATICS OF LANGUAGE (Summer 2011), pp. 297-315 Published by: Springer Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41488480 Accessed: 23-04-2020 06:16 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Logic, Language, and Information This content downloaded from 194.94.133.193 on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:16:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J Log Lang Inf (201 1) 20:297-315 DOI 10.1007/S10849-01 1-9141-1 Syntactic Structures and Recursive Devices: A Legacy of Imprecision Marcus Tomalin Published online: 17 April 201 1 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 201 1 Abstract Taking Chomsky's Syntactic Structures as a starting point, this paper explores the use of recursive techniques in contemporary linguistic theory. Specif- ically, it is shown that there were profound ambiguities surrounding the notion of recursion in the 1950s, and that this was partly due to the fact that influential texts such as Syntactic Structures neglected to define what exactly constituted a recursive device. As a result, uncertainties concerning the role of recursion in linguistic theory have pre- vailed until the present day, and some of the most common misunderstandings that have appeared in recent discussions are examined at some length. This article shows that debates about such topics are frequently undermined by fundamental misunder- standings concerning core terminology, and the full extent of the prevailing haziness is revealed. An attempt is made, for instance, to distinguish between such things as iter- ative constructional devices and self-similar syntactic embedding, despite the fact that these are usually both unhelpfully classified as examples of recursion. Consequently, this article effectively constitutes a plea for much greater accuracy and clarity when such important issues are addressed from a linguistic perspective. Keywords Syntax • Recursion • Minimalism 1 Introduction Although recursive devices have been used in linguistic theorising implicitly since the fourth century ВС (at least), and explicitly since the 1950s, during the past few years This article is an extensively revised version of a paper that was delivered at MoLlO in 2007. The original paper was delivered as a 'key-note' address which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the publication of Syntactic Structures (1957). M. Tomalin (E3) Downing College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1DQ, UK e-mail: [email protected] â Springer This content downloaded from 194.94.133.193 on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:16:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 298 M. Tomalin such techniques have been subjected to unprecedented discussion and debate. This is partly due to the strong claims that Chomsky (in particular) has made since 1995 concerning the role of recursion in the Minimalist Program. In essence, a strongly minimalist view of language can be expressed by the simple equation: 'interfaces + recursion = language', and this suggests that recursion is the single most important component of the faculty of language (FL).1 While some linguists have enthusias- tically championed this view, others have claimed that it is far too parsimonious. For Sigrid Beck, '[g]rammer is not limited to recursive structure building' (Beck 2007,278). More provocatively still, others have recently challenged the minimalist assumption that recursion is a necessary component of FL by presenting analyses of languages which appear not to utilise recursive structures. Dan Everett, in particu- lar, has claimed that the Amazonian language Pirahã does not make use of nested clauses.2 If such analyses prove to be correct, then recursion would seem not to be universal, and this would in turn undermine its privileged status in modern syntactic theory. Given the numerous arguments made for and against the claim that recursion is fundamental to FL, it is appropriate that the subject should have become prominent in recent discussions of the evolution of natural language. For example, Simon Kirby has explored computational models for the acquisition of 'recursive syntax' (Kirby 2002). In addition, other linguists have recently argued that the traditional view that recursion enables an infinite number of linguistic structures to be generated from a finite set of discrete units is a lazy stance that requires drastic reconsideration. In particular, Geoff Pullum and Barabara Scholtz have proposed that 'the use of a rule-application analog of recursion in grammars does not entail infinitude for human languages, and infini- tude does not offer independent evidence that a human language must have a recursive generative grammar' (Pullum and Scholtz 2010,8) Predictably, such considerations have attracted the attention of non-linguists, and the alleged centrality of recursion in human cognition (in general) has become an increasingly popular research topic in cognitive science more broadly. Michael Corballis, for example, has argued that recur- sion is a distinctive (possibly unique) aspect of human cognitive function (Corballis 2007). In the light of these ongoing debates, this article will seek to accomplish several tasks, but the main purpose is to attempt to clarify the way in which the term recursion is used in contemporary linguistic theorising. In order to do this, an historiographical perspective will be adopted initially, and the deployment of recursive techniques in Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (SS) will provide a convenient starting point. As will be shown in detail, the notion of 'recursion' was fundamentally ambiguous when it began to be used by linguists in the 1950s, and (as the subtitle of this article implies), these ambiguities have persisted to the present day. This unfortunate (and needless) perpetuation of imprecision has had a deleterious impact upon recent discussions of the role of recursion in linguistic theory. 1 For a discussion of this formulation, see Sauerland and Gätner (2007). When used in this context, 'interfaces' usually denotes the conceptual-intentional (CI) and sensorimotor (SM) systems. These are the language-external systems with which FL interacts. For other perspectives, see van der Hülst (2010). 2 The ongoing debate about these matters can be traced in publications such as Everett (2005, 2009), Nevins et al. (2009a, b). Springer This content downloaded from 194.94.133.193 on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:16:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Syntactic Structures and Recursive Devices: A Legacy of Imprecision 299 2 Recursive Syntactic Structures Before focusing on the particular recursive techniques mentioned in SS (and some of Chomsky's other works from the 1950s), it is helpful to reflect upon how the word recursion is commonly used in general, non-technical discourse. The OED, for instance, offers the following definition: The application or use of a recursive procedure or definition; primitive recursion, definition of a function of natural numbers by induction on a single argument or (equivalently) by simple recursion formulae; recursion formula, an equation relating the value of a function for a given value of its argument (or arguments) to its values for other values of the argument(s). This definition is hardly lucid, but it certainly attempts to identify certain kinds of 'pro- cedure' and 'definition' that have distinctive properties of self-reference. By contrast, that other source of all Truth, Wikipedia, begins its entry with these words: Recursion, in mathematics and computer science, is a method of defining func- tions in which the function being defined is applied within its own definition. The term is also used more generally to describe a process of repeating objects in a self-similar way. For instance, when the surfaces of two mirrors are exactly parallel with each other the nested images that occur are a form of infinite recur- sion.3 One again, the main emphasis here is upon particular types of 'process' and 'defini- tion', and recursive qualities are not associated explicitly with inherent structural configurations. As these informal and rather fragmentary definitions/descriptions indicate, words and phrases such as 'procedure', 'process', 'function', 'definition', 'self-reference', 'circularity', and 'efficiency' appear frequently when recursion is discussed. A more playful definition runs as follows: Recursion : If you still don't know, See: "Recursion". At the time of writing (7/1 1/09), the Google search engine essentially implements this formulation: a search for the word 'recursion' returns around three million results, along with the helpful suggestion 'Did you mean: recursion!' . So, informally, there appear to be several inherent properties that are associated with recursive techniques, and self-reference (of some kind) is usually viewed as being central. However, as I have shown in some detail elsewhere, when the word recursion began to be used explicitly in the context of linguistic theory in the 1950s, there were considerable ambiguities as to what the term actually meant.4 Although there is no need to rehearse the same arguments here in detail, a brief overview of the main developments might be useful. In 1 889, the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano made extensive use of inductive definitions in his axioms for the natural numbers, and, influenced in part by Peano's 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion, accessed on 7/1 1/09. 4 For a detailed discussion, see Tomalin (2007). Springer This content downloaded from 194.94.133.193 on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 06:16:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 300 M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thinking Like a Linguist Jordan B
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-18392-6 — Thinking like a Linguist Jordan B. Sandoval, Kristin E. Denham Frontmatter More Information Thinking like a Linguist This is an engaging introduction to the study of language for undergraduate or beginning graduate students, aimed especially at those who would like to continue further linguistic study. It introduces students to analytical thinking about language but goes beyond existing texts to show what it means to think like a scientist about language, through the exploration of data and interactive problem sets. A key feature of this text is its flexibility. With its focus on foundational areas of linguistics and scientific analysis, it can be used in a variety of course types, with instructors using it alongside other information or texts as appropriate for their own courses of study. The text can also serve as a supplementary text in other related fields (speech and hearing sciences, psychology, education, computer science, anthropology, and others) to help learners in these areas better understand how linguists think about and work with language data. No prerequisites are necessary. While each chapter often references content from the others, the three central chapters, on sound, structure, and meaning, may be used in any order. Jordan B. Sandoval is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA. She received her BA in Linguistics from Western Washington University and her PhD from the University of Arizona in 2008. Her research interests include orthographic influence on lexical representations, language and iden- tity, and second language phonological acquisition pedagogy. Kristin E. Denham is Professor of Linguistics at Western Washington University.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in Form and Function in Jewish English Intonation
    Variation in Form and Function in Jewish English Intonation Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Rachel Steindel Burdin ∼6 6 Graduate Program in Linguistics The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Professor Brian D. Joseph, Advisor Professor Cynthia G. Clopper Professor Donald Winford c Rachel Steindel Burdin, 2016 Abstract Intonation has long been noted as a salient feature of American Jewish English speech (Weinreich, 1956); however, there has not been much systematic study of how, exactly Jewish English intonation is distinct, and to what extent Yiddish has played a role in this distinctness. This dissertation examines the impact of Yiddish on Jewish English intonation in the Jewish community of Dayton, Ohio, and how features of Yiddish intonation are used in Jewish English. 20 participants were interviewed for a production study. The participants were balanced for gender, age, religion (Jewish or not), and language background (whether or not they spoke Yiddish in addition to English). In addition, recordings were made of a local Yiddish club. The production study revealed differences in both the form and function in Jewish English, and that Yiddish was the likely source for that difference. The Yiddish-speaking participants were found to both have distinctive productions of rise-falls, including higher peaks, and a wider pitch range, in their Yiddish, as well as in their English produced during the Yiddish club meetings. The younger Jewish English participants also showed a wider pitch range in some situations during the interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Usage and Identity of Somali Males in America Ali Hassan St
    St. Cloud State University theRepository at St. Cloud State Culminating Projects in English Department of English 12-2017 "Where Did You Leave the Somali Language?" Language Usage and Identity of Somali Males in America Ali Hassan St. Cloud State University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds Recommended Citation Hassan, Ali, ""Where Did You Leave the Somali Language?" Language Usage and Identity of Somali Males in America" (2017). Culminating Projects in English. 106. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/106 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in English by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Where did you leave the Somali Language?” Language usage and identity of Somali Males in America by Ali Hassan A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of St. Cloud State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in English: Teaching English as a Second Language December, 2017 Thesis Committee: Michael Schwartz, Chairperson Choonkyong Kim Rami Amiri 2 Abstract Research in second language teaching and learning has many aspects to focus on, but this paper will focus on the sociolinguistic issues related to language usage and identity. Language usage is the lens that is used to understand the identity of Somali males in America. Language usage in social contexts gives us the opportunity to learn the multiple identities of Somali males in America.
    [Show full text]
  • Essentials of Linguistics
    Deep Learning for Natural Language Processing Essentials of linguistics Marco Kuhlmann Department of Computer and Information Science This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. What is linguistics? • Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and in particular the relationship between language form and language meaning. Different languages have different words for the animal ‘cat’. • Tis relationship is in principle an arbitrary one – the same word can mean different things to different people. semiotic arbitrariness (Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857–1913) • Besides form and meaning, another important subject of study for linguistics is how language is used in context. Languages of the world Oceania 7M Africa Oceania 887M 1 313 Europe Africa 1720M 2 144 Europe 287 Americas 51M Americas 1 061 Asia Ethnologue Asia 3980M 2 294 Languages by region of origin Population by region of origin from taken Data Levels of linguistic description pragmatics semantics analyse syntax generate morphology phonology Levels of linguistic description pragmatics semantics analyse syntax generate morphology phonology Phonology • Phonology studies the sound systems of human languages, that is, how sounds are organised and used. • For example, Japanese speakers who learn English as a second language have difficulty in hearing and producing the sounds /r/ and /l/ correctly because in Japanese, these are one sound. right/light, arrive/alive • Phonology is different from phonetics, which is concerned with the production, transmission and perception of sounds. Levels of linguistic description pragmatics semantics analyse syntax generate morphology phonology Words consist of morphemes • Morphemes are the smallest meaningful units of language. Morpheme+s are the small+est mean+ing+ful unit+s of language.
    [Show full text]
  • NINE Toward Progress in Theories of Language Sound Structure MARK LIBERMAN
    NINE Toward Progress in Theories of Language Sound Structure MARK LIBERMAN 9.1. Introduction The theme of this chapter is a crucial redundancy in the traditional organization of phonological theories. Serious consideration of this redundancy supports radical simplification of the theory. In technical terms, allophonic variation can be treated in two different ways: first, as a mapping from symbols to symbols, via phonological rules or constraints; or second, as a mapping from symbols to signals, via principles of phonetic realization. Careful examination of specific cases of allophonic variation generally supports (and never seems to refute) a mode of description of the second type, in which structured phonological representations are mapped onto classes of phonetic trajectories. We should therefore consider the null hypothesis: a theory that entirely eliminates the symbolic treatment of allophonic variation and makes postlexical representations subject to direct phonetic interpretation, without any intervening symbol manipulation, whether by rules or by constraints. This leaves us with four well-motivated (indeed unavoidable) tools for dealing with sound-structure patterns: 1. Phonological inventory: the set of available phonological elements and structures. 2. Lexical entries: the phonological spelling of whatever entities are listed in the lexicon: roots, affixes, morphological templates, words, phrases. 3. Allomorphy: alternative lexical pronunciations, whether conditioned by morphological features and morphological or phonological context, or in (linguistically) free variation. 4. Phonetic interpretation: the mapping between symbols (from 1 to 3) and signals. And we assume, following Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) and many others, that patterns of phonetic interpretation are variably conditioned by structured phonological representations, as well as by rhetorical, attitudinal, and physiological variables, in ways that can be specific to particular language varieties and even particular individual speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • G-Dropping” in American English Using Forced Alignment Jiahong Yuan 1, Mark Liberman 2 University of Pennsylvania 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected]
    Automatic Detection of “g-dropping” in American English Using Forced Alignment Jiahong Yuan 1, Mark Liberman 2 University of Pennsylvania 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] Abstract—This study investigated the use of forced alignment Previous studies on “g-dropping” have relied on for automatic detection of “g-dropping” in American English impressionistic coding of the variable. Although it is a (e.g., walkin'). Two acoustic models were trained, one for -in' and relatively easy task for native speakers to manually classify the other for -ing. The models were added to the Penn Phonetics “g-dropping” [11], it is expensive, inconsistent and Lab Forced Aligner, and forced alignment will choose the more impractical when we move on from analysing small datasets probable pronunciation from the two alternatives. The agreement rates between the forced alignment method and native to thousands of hours of speech that are now openly available. English speakers ranged from 79% to 90%, which were In this study we investigate the use of forced alignment for comparable to the agreement rates among the native speakers automatic classification of ‘g-dropping’. We evaluate the (79% - 96%). The two variations of pronunciation not only method by comparing the results with native speakers’ manual differed in their nasal codas, but also – and even more so – in coding. Finally, we explore the acoustic difference between their vowel quality. This is shown by both the KL-divergence the two variations (-in’ and -ing) through both computing the between the two models, and that native Mandarin speakers divergence between the two models, and comparing native performed poorly on classification of “g-dropping”.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Markers of Status in Food Culture: Bourdieu’S Distinction in a Menu Corpus
    Linguistic Markers of Status in Food Culture: Bourdieu’s Distinction in a Menu Corpus Dan Jurafsky, Victor Chahuneau, Bryan R. Routledge, and Noah A. Smith 10.18.16 Peer-Reviewed By: Nathalie Cooke & Anon. Clusters: Food Article DOI: 10.22148/16.007 Dataverse DOI: 10.7910/DVN/QMLCPD Journal ISSN: 2371-4549 Cite: Dan Jurafsky, Victor Chahuneau, Bryan R. Routledge, and Noah A. Smith, “Linguistic Markers of Status in Food Culture: Bourdieu’s Distinction in a Menu Corpus,”Cultural Analytics Oct. 18, 2016. DOI: 10.22148/16.007 Food is a core element of culture, whose link with identity and socio-economic class has made it an important area of cultural research. 1 In his ground-breaking study, Pierre Bourdieu noted that “oppositions similar in structure to those found in cultural practices also appear in eating habits.” 2 His work established deep associations linking food culture, and taste more generally, with social class and other aspects of identity, demonstrating the economic and social determinants of taste and their role in representing distinctions, differences between groups. 1This work was supported in part by a research grant from Google, and by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. We are grateful for very helpful suggestions from David Bamman, Mark Liberman, and the anonymous reviewers, and to the New York Public Library for their generosity in making the Buttolph menu collection available to the public. 2Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Harvard University Press, 1984). 1 Dan Jurafsky et al.
    [Show full text]
  • James W. Pennebaker January 2021
    James W. Pennebaker January 2021 Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station A8000 Austin, TX 78712 512-232-2781 E-mail address: [email protected] Webpage: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/psychology/faculty/pennebak Education 1973-1977 University of Texas, Austin, Texas, Ph.D. in psychology 1970-1972 Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida, B.A. with honors 1968-1970 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Positions 2009-present Regents Centennial Liberal Arts Professor of Psychology 2016-2018 Executive Director of Project 2021 and Special Advisor to the Provost for Educational Innovation, University of Texas at Austin 2005-2014 Chair, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin 2005-2009 Barbara Bush Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin 2005-2010 International Professor of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, UK 2004-2005 Associate Chair, Department of Psychology 1997-present Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin 1995-1997 Chair, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University 1987-1997 Professor of Psychology, Southern Methodist University 1983-1987 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University 1982-1983 Polygraph unit instructor, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, Virginia 1977-1983 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia Honors 2021 William James Fellows Award, Association for Psychological Science 2016 APA Distinguished Contributions
    [Show full text]
  • Example: Phone App for Height Estimation from the Speech Signal
    LINGUISTICS FOR EVERYONE - Links to Resources LFE ad hoc committee, Fall 2014-Spring 2015, B. Pearson & J. Maling, co-chairs (committee information at end) Posted on http://www.umass.edu/aae/bp_refs.htm#present for live links Source Participants/ title link comment I Inspirations, Models of Informal Science NRC Surrounded by Science http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_072091 learning in informal environments PNAS The Science of Communicating Sciencehttp://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4.toc 16 September 2014; Vol. 111, No. Supplement 4 AAAS Annual meeting 2013: http://www.aaas.org/page/communicating-science-seminar-annual-meeting-2013full video recording 2014: http://www.aaas.org/page/2014-annual-meeting-communicating-science-seminar Alan Alda/Stony Brook http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/ Center for Communicating Science http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/the-flame-challenge-2/ Flame Challenge (explaining science to 11yr-old) WBUR Rise of Pop Science ("explainer videos")http://www.wbur.org/npr/257552199/hot-on-youtube-videos-about-video-games-and-science-too NSF VIZZIES (annual) http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/scivis/dates.jsp Dance your Dissertation http://gonzolabs.org/dance/ 2014 winners announced 11/3 NYT Flora Lichtman, Sharon Shattuck http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/animated-life-seeing-the-invisible.html?ribbon-ad-idx=7&src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article&_r=1Cool animation on Leeuwenhoek, II.
    [Show full text]
  • Extris, Extris Arnold M. Zwicky, Stanford University July 2006 for at Least 35 Years, English Speakers Have Been Producing Sente
    Extris, extris Arnold M. Zwicky, Stanford University July 2006 For at least 35 years, English speakers have been producing sentences with an occurrence of a form of BE that is not licensed in standard English (SE) and is not a disfluency – our Extris (“extra is”). There are many subtypes, but we observe that all are based on SE constructions with a specific discourse function and suggest that any SE construction with this function can have an Extris counterpart. The Isis (“is is”, “double is’, etc.) subtype has gotten much attention – from Bolinger through Brenier et al. – as a variant of SE “thingy”-N-subject or pseudocleft (PC) sentences: (1) N-type Isis: The funny thing is is that Lisa was there too. (2) PC-type Isis: What’s nice is is that it has a sort of other-worldly character. There are also Singlis (single-“is”) examples, where the SE counterparts are not copular. In one set (Jehn, Ross-Hagebaum), the clauses are deictic or existential – our Th: (3) N-type Th: That’s/Here’s our suggestion for it is that... (4) PC-type Th: That’s/This is what we hear all the time is that... (5) There Th: There’s one thing I need to do is leave a check. Then there are McConvell’s (2004) FreeBe’s, in which initial material is either explicitly cataphoric (as above) or implicitly so: (6) Exp FreeBe: We looked at it this way is that... (7) Imp FreeBe: I’d like to say is that... What unites (1)-(7) is that they are all variants of SE constructions that introduce content by announcing, in an explicitly or implicitly cataphoric expression (SU: “set-up”), that it is about to be introduced, and then supplying it in a following expression (PO: “pay-off”, a.k.a.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistics As a Scientific Study of Language
    Linguistics Linguistics is the scientific[1] study of language,[2] and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning, and language in context.[3] The earliest activities in thedocumentation and description of language have been attributed to the 4th century BCEIndian grammarian Pāṇini,[4][5] who wrote a formal description of theSanskrit language in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.[6] Linguists traditionally analyse human language by observing an interplay between sound and meaning.[7] Phonetics is the study of speech and non-speech sounds, and delves into their acoustic and articulatory properties. The study of languagemeaning , on the other hand, deals with how languages encode relations between entities, properties, and other aspects of the world to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as manage and resolve ambiguity.[8] While the study of semantics typically concerns itself with truth conditions, pragmatics deals with how situational context influences the production of meaning.[9] Grammar is a system of rules which governs the production and use of utterances in a given language. These rules apply to sound[10] as well as meaning, and include componential sub-sets of rules, such as those pertaining to phonology (the organisation of phonetic sound systems), morphology (the formation and composition of words), and syntax (the formation and composition of phrases and sentences).[11] Modern theories that deal with the principles of grammar are largely based within Noam Chomsky's framework of generative linguistics.[12] In the early 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure distinguished between the notions of langue and parole in his formulation of structural linguistics. According to him, parole is the specific utterance of speech, whereas langue refers to an abstract phenomenon that theoretically defines the principles and system of rules that govern a language.[13] This distinction resembles the one made by Noam Chomsky between competence and performance in his theory of transformative or generative grammar.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidi B. Harley Curriculum Vitae, 2014 Dept
    1 Heidi B. Harley Curriculum Vitae, 2014 Dept. of Linguistics (o) (520) 626-3554 University of Arizona (fax) (520) 626-6897 P.O. 210028 [email protected] Tucson, AZ 85721-0028 CHRONOLOGY OF EDUCATION: 1995: Doctor of Philosophy, Linguistics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1991: Bachelor of Arts, Linguistics and English. Memorial University of Newfoundland CHRONOLOGY OF EMPLOYMENT: Long-term appointments Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, 2010-present Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, 2005-2010 Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, 1999-2005 Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (NSF), University of Pennsylvania, 1997-1999 Postdoctoral Fellow, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, University of Pennsylvania, 1996-1997 Maître de langue, Université Charles de Gaulle (Lille III), Lille, France, October 1995- June 1996 Summer and short-term appointments Professor of Linguistics (0.2 FTE), University of Ulster, Jan-Dec 2013 Visiting Research Professor University of Ulster, Humanities Research Institute, Summer 2011 Visiting Research Professor University of Ulster, Humanities Research Institute, Summer 2007 Assistant Research Social Scientist, Cognitive Science Program University of Arizona, 1999-2005 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics Harvard University, January-June 2005 Temporary Lecturer in Linguistics, Comparative Philology and General Linguistics Oxford University, May-June 2004 Program affiliations Faculty Member, Cognitive Science Program University of Arizona, 1999-present Faculty member, Second Language Acquisition and Teaching GIDP University of Arizona, 2000-present Faculty member, Joint Anthropology/Linguistics Program University of Arizona, 1999-present 2 HONORS AND AWARDS Graduate and Professional Education Teaching and Mentoring Award, Graduate College, University of Arizona, March, 2011.
    [Show full text]