Grammar with a "G"

[Rob Freeman]

Something new? There is a new approach to structure in it, ignore the rest. Think of
the difference between a clockwork and the picture of a clockwork, that's it. They
look the same, but what they are is different. My point (like Greg's?) is not who is
looking at the clockwork of language, it is the suggestion that the perceived
structure is not the 'real' structure. In the theories I was referring to the 'real'
mechanism is example and analogy, Grammar is only the shadows it casts, real but
unreal, with fuzzy edges. That's the point I wanted to make. Beyond that I don't
care what you make of grammar, who's looking at the shadows: me see, you see, we all
see...

Anyway, I was just drawing attention to this 'analogy-based' work (BTW analogy is
very naturally implemented using networks ;-). I wasn't sure if it had come up. If
y'all are familiar with it then that's OK.

Rob Freeman

Sydney M Lamb wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Rob Freeman wrote:
>
> > I've been kind of distantly following this discussion, but Greg's message came
> > close enough to my beliefs to make me feel it might be worth posting. Has
> > anything come up yet regarding 'emergent structure' from 'analogy based'
> > processing? This has become a vigorous little sub-field of natural language
> > processing research in recent years: 'example-based', 'memory-based',
> > 'case-based' reasoning etc. Basic idea is that grammar is just the observed
> > regularities of collections of examples, and analogies to them, which are what
> > really control our perceptions. You still get grammar, but because the basic
> > mechanism is analogy it has soft edges.
>
> This is a start, but it leaves more questions unanswered than answered:
>         "You still get grammar..."      WHO gets grammar?  The linguist
>                 doing an ex post facto analysis?  Or who?
>
>         "...emergent structure..."      WHERE does the structure emerge?
>                 In the minds of linguists analyzing linguistic
>                 productions?  Or in the minds of speakers? If the latter
>                 then this view is no different from that which has always
>                 been held by everyone except 'innatists', a recently
>                 encountered group most of whom are not functionalists.
>
> If grammar "is just the observed regularities of collections of examples"
> then it is the grammarian and not the speaker of the language that you are
> talking about.  And again we have to ask if anything new is being
> proposed...