Grammar with a G

[Rob Freeman]

david_tuggy at SIL.ORG wrote:

> If I understand what you're talking about, you're saying there is no
> predetermined number of relevant patterns (-schemas-rules), that even logically
> inconsistent patterns may coexist, that patterns of all levels of generality or
> (un)systematicity may be relevant, that the patterns themselves are meaningful
> and that the establishing of a pattern is establishing meaning, that low-level
> (highly detailed) patterns have some sort of priority over high-level (more
> general) ones, and so forth. If that's what you're after, Langacker's model has
> it all built in.

If you really accept 'shifting schemas' then do 'rule-based and analogy-based
accounts differ only in degree, not in kind' as you say in your first message? To
fit my model this would mean a 'rule-based account' which had a new 'rule' for every
concept - essentially infinite.

Most of the time when people think of a rule-based account they think of a finite
number of rules. Analogical models which seek to extract rules or label structure
can only get a finite amount of it. I think that the relevant structure is
essentially infinite. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight.

Apart from that I agree totally with Langacker's model. An idea of '_shifting_
schemas' would seem to fit the bill precisely.

Rob