conversation and syntax

A. Katz amnfn at well.com
Mon Jun 9 13:33:13 UTC 2008


The Newmeyer article does seem to be fostering fruitful debate on the
nature of language, and thus does seem to be well within the scope of a Funknet
discussion.

I'd like to add this perspective on "formulaic" or unoriginal expressions
in spontaneous speech. Just because two individuals came up with the same
phrase or clause (or just because a thousand or more did) doesn't mean
that their method of deriving the expressions was the same.  Some may have
dug them up already composed from their lexicon. Others may have put them
together word for word by reference to synatctic rules.

Determining which people did which requires more complex testing than
simply statistical analysis of expressions in a corpus.

Best,

    --Aya


On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Paul Hopper wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In Fritz Newmeyer's article on conversation and syntax, he gives the following example of a text in which an analysis in terms of formulaicity and formulaic fragments would be impossible:
>
> A: hi
> B: hi so did you hear what the topic is
> A: yes it's about terrorism right
> B: yeah
> B: um
> A: so what are your feelings on that [laughter
> B: i have [laughter] i personally can't imagine anyone staying
> calm [laughter]
> A: yeah nor can i yeah
> B: um you would even i- though if you're panicked i would assume you would try and
> B: keep your head clear enough to act to protect yourself but
> A: right
> A: yeah i don't know if there was an explosion or something
> i don't it it's a shock so i don't know that anybody can really think about it and
> control themselves
> B: um
> B: right even with all the um
> B: (( [sigh] the ))
> B: the publicity and media coverage you know that's been on
> that topic
> A: (( [mn] right ))
> B: twenty months it's still um
> B: is something that you wouldn't be
>
> Newmeyer writes (MS p. 13): "There are certainly formulaic expressions here: hi, right, take in stride, I don’t think, and possibly a few others. But in other respects the transcript reveals a sophisticated knowledge of syntax that defies any meaningful analysis in terms of ‘fragments’. The speakers know how to handle purpose clauses, wh-inversion, relative clause attachment, participial complements, and much more. If these are somehow to be subsumed under the rubric of ‘fragments’, then I would say that this infinitisemally small sample of natural speech would have to contain at least two dozen fragments. How many more would be needed to describe a typical speaker’s daily output?"
>
> Regarding Fritz's last statement: Dwight Bolinger said somewhere that there's a reason the human brain has trillions of cells...! Well, I identified the groups of words that I would suspect are formulaic and typed them into Google.com to see if they were as unique (and therefore syntactic) as Fritz claims. The results are, it seems to me, consistent with the idea that the speaker is indeed stringing together formulaic fragments. The statistics are Google's, of course--they are rough and may fluctuate with different trials.
>
> - Paul
>
> -----------------------------
> did you hear what the topic is\ "Topic" doesn't occur, but about a dozen other NPs do; the formula is: \did you hear what the * is\.
>
> it’s about terrorism\ occurs 5,240 times
>
> what are your feelings on that\ occurs 266 times
>
> can’t imagine anyone\ occurs 387,000 times;
>
> staying calm\ occurs 275,000 times
>
> nor can I\ occurs 1,210,000 times
>
> you're panicked\ occurs 2,090 times
>
> i would assume you would try and\ occurs twice
>
> to keep your head clear enough to\ occurs 14 times.
>
> to act to protect yourself\ occurs 14 times
>
> if there was an explosion or something\ occurs 6 times (!)
>
> it's a shock\ occurs 98,400 times
>
> i don't know that anybody\ occurs 17,900 times
>
> can really think about it\ occurs 69 times
>
> control themselves\ occurs 406,000 times
>
> even with all the publicity\ occurs 190 times
>
> media coverage\ occurs 295,000 times
>
> on that topic\ occurs 2,970,000 times
>
> in the last twenty months\ occurs 1,070 times [NB specifically with "twenty", not just any number!]
>
> something that you wouldn't be\ occurs 140 times
>
> able to take in stride\ occurs 289 times
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > What is to be the nature of Funknet?
> >
> > Most of us would think of it as an arena in which we can discuss topics
> > within the/a functionalist paradigm by swapping ideas in an ongoing
> > conversation. However, the polemical "article of faith" abstract Fritz
> > Newmeyer has sent round contains no empirical arguments, so it cannot be
> > responded to without reading the entire article. The controversial points
> > he makes in the article will basically go unanswered in this forum simply
> > because the genre of email doesn't permit a paradigm-level response. Only
> > another article can respond to an article. So Fritz gets to trash someone
> > else's work in public on the basis of a promissory note.
> >
> > It would be sad if Funknet became a clearing house for the exchange of
> > titles and abstracts rather than the actual discussion of ideas.
> >
> > - Paul
> >
> >
> >> Dear Funknetters,
> >>
> >> I think that some of you might be interested in the following paper of
> >> mine:
> >>
> >> 'What Conversational English Tells Us About the Nature of Grammar'
> >>
> >> ABSTRACT It has become an article of faith among many functional and
> >> cognitive linguists that the complex abstract structures posited by
> >> generative grammarians are an artifact of ‘disembodied sentences that
> >> analysts have made up ad hoc, 
 rather than utterances produced by real
> >>  people in real discourse situations’ (Michael Tomasello). Their view
> >> is that if one focuses on ‘naturally occurring discourse’, then grammar
> >> will reveal itself to be primarily a matter of memorized formulas and
> >> simple constructions. This paper challenges that view. Basing its claims
> >> on a 170MB corpus of conversational English, it argues that the nature
> >> of real discourse reinforces the need for a sophisticated engine for
> >> representing and accessing grammatical knowledge. At a more specific
> >> level, it challenges Sandra Thompson’s claim that evidence from
> >> conversation leads to the conclusion that sentential complements (e.g.,
> >> 'you’re ready to go' in 'I guess you’re ready to go') are not
> >> grammatically subordinate.
> >>
> >> The paper can be accessed at the following url:
> >>
> >> http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Fritz
> >>
> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> >> University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper
> Senior Fellow
> Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies
> Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
> and
> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh, PA5213
>
>



More information about the Funknet mailing list