Reply to Fritz Newmeyer

Jon Aske jaske at ABACUS.BATES.EDU
Fri Jan 10 18:57:53 UTC 1997


First of all, I agree with Matthew's interpretation of his facts, and
disagree with Fritz's reinterpretation.  But I don't think either one
will convince the other.

About parsing and branching preferences, I think Jack Hawkins' study is
somewhat artificial and doesn't reflect realistically what actual
language in use is like, and that it ignores many other aspects of
language, such as the use of intonation to disambiguate structures and
the average length of clauses, which is actually quite short in 99.99%
of clauses in actual speech.  If branching was such an important
motivation in determining the form of constructions, we would expect a
majority of languages, if not all, to be right branching for example.

I think a major problem here involves what we take syntax/grammar to be,
not just whether it is autonomous from other things.

In my book, grammar is a set of relatively independent, and relatively
interdependent constructions (ie a "leaky system" of constructions).
Semantics, pragmatics, and processing and other cognitive constraints,
have a lot to do with the form of those constructions, particularly how
they come about diachronically.  I am not sure, however, that all of
these diachronic motivations are equally relevant synchronically, that
is in the interpretation that speakers make of those constructions.

A major problem with autonomous approaches, as I see it, is that

(1) they attempt to explain synchronically (ie as part of the
internalized grammar) formal correlations which are not synchronically
real (such as branching direction, active and passive constructions,
order of affixes, etc.), but which stem from diachronic sources, thus
"recapitulating diachrony", and

(2) that they do not attempt to explain actual iconic correlations
between form and function as found in many constructions, particularly
speech act constructions.  The pragmatic motivations which are often
grammaticalized into constructions do not simply vanish once they have
eft their imprint on those constructions, as Fritz has argued elsewhere,
but I think they are a very important part of how speakers interpret,
store, and use those constructions.

Anyway, that's more than enough for today.  I'll be delighted to hear
any responses anyone may have to these thoughts.

Jon

Frederick Newmeyer wrote:
>
> and it remains to be seen whether any precision can be given to the
> formula: semantics + processing = syntax." (Hawkins 1994: 439)
>
> While his formula (as he would I am sure agree) is too simple, I basically
> agree with him.

--
Jon Aske
jaske at abacus.bates.edu
http://www.bates.edu/~jaske/
--
Balantza duen aldera erortzen da arbola
"The tree falls towards the side it's leaning."



More information about the Funknet mailing list