novel sentences

[Jean Hudson]

At 09:13 25/06/98 -0700, Aya Katz wrote:

>The number of possible sentences in a language is infinite, only if
>we assume the following:
>
>      a) that there is no upper bound on the length of a possible
>         sentence
>
>      and
>
>      b) that there isn't a rate of historical change associated with
>repeated use that would eventually lead to the evolution of a form of
>the language that is not intelligible to the speakers of the earlier
>sentences.

[...}

>So long as there is an upper bound to the length of a possible
>sentence, then the number of possible sentences in a language is not
>infinite. (It may be very large, allowing for an immense number of
>novel sentences to be uttered in one lifetime, but -- even given an
>immortal speaker -- generating an infinite number of sentences in an
>unchanging language would eventually lead to repetition.)


I agree that the first issue is relatively simple, but either we ARE dealing
with a mathematical construct, in which case it's fair to hypothesize an
upper limit to the number of possible sentences immortal speakers of an
unchanging language could produce. Or we're talking about language as it is
used - in changing ways - by mere mortals. Maybe there's sth I've
misinterpreted here, but Aya seems to be claiming the latter while arguing
that productivity is finite 'given an immortal speaker and an unchanging
language'.

I'd say the dichotomy is non-existent: it rests upon differences in the
focus of interest of the interlocuters in the debate. Logicians and
theorists might argue that the number of possible sentences in a language is
finite; functional, applied, and descriptive linguists might argue that it
is infinite. Both are right, of course. They are using the same make of
camera with different lenses. This kind of discussion tends to be irritating.

The second issue is much more interesting. 'Repetition' is too often
confused with 'lack of originality', but it is only through repetition that
language change and revitalization can come about (cf the literature on
grammaticalization and, in particular, Haiman 1994 on ritualization). So,
there is novelty in the production of sentences never before uttered and,
phoenix-like, there is novelty and language renewal in the frequent
repetition of sentences (or syntagms). Surely this is evidence in support of
the 'infinite' in language production?

        Jean Hudson
----------------------
Jean Hudson
Research Editor
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building
Cambridge CB2 2RU

email: jhudson at cup.cam.ac.uk
phone: +44-1223-325123
fax:   +44-1223-325984

(http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/)

mail address:
Cambridge University Press
Publishing Division
The Edinburgh Building
Shaftesbury Road
Cambridge CB2 2RU
UK