conversation and syntax

[timo.honkela at tkk.fi]

I agree that this is an interesting emerging discussion. Related to 
the grammaticalization and the ontological and epistemological status 
of linguistic rules, I would like to refer to my recent presentation 
"Linguistic Categories as Social Constructions" in Pisa, Italy.
The main parts of the presentation are available at
http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/lingcat_as_socialconstructions_honkela_excerpts.pdf

For those interested, I recommend the slide 17 that summarizes the 
inherent subjectivity and intersubjectivity of concept formation and 
the 18 slide that takes that into the domain of the practice of 
theory formation within linguistics. 

Best regards,
Timo Honkela



On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Tom Givon wrote:

> I think we are finally getting a discussion of interesting issues, so again we
> should thank Fritz for initiating it, by whatever means. This once again
> brings home the fact that ideological homogeneity is not necessarily good for
> intellectual growth. Now,  Fritz raises two issues that maybe I could respond
> to.
> 
> GRAMMATICALIZATION: What does it really mean (quote) "...[All that I have ever
> said in print is that] what is called 'grammaticalization' is the by-product
> of a number of interacting processes..."? Does this mean that there are many
> different communicative functions that get grammaticalized, and that the
> (by-)products  of these multiple processes of grammaticalization are different
> morpho-syntactic constructions? If that's all it means, there is nothing
> earthshaking about it. I'll subscribe any time. On the other hand, it could
> also mean "there are no (strong!) general trends that characterize the
> diachronic rise of morpho-syntactic construction" (as the
> Campbell/Janda/Jacobs crowd would have it). This is is a substantive negative
> claim, one I don't see how one could accept. Having studied grammaticalization
> for ca. 40 years now, I'll have to take a strong exception to such an
> interpretation. What those of us who have spent a lifetime trying to
> understand the genesis of grammar (diachronically, ontogenetically,
> phylogenetiuvcally) would say is that there are VERY STRONG general
> tendencies--and principles--that characterize such a developmental process.
> Whether one would want to call them "theory", "rules" or "laws" is a matter of
> utter  indifference to me. I would be satisfied with "high degree of
> generality" or "high degree of predictability". As the late Ernst Mayr said
> long ago, biological regularities are not like the laws of physics. They
> emerge out of multi-factored, complex, adaptive environments, where often
> adaptive factors clash with each other. So even the strongest regularities are
> less that 100% ("generative"). This has never discouraged biologists from
> seeking powerful theoretical explanations. Why should it discourage linguists?
> 
> MAIN STEAM FUNCTIONALISM:  Here is the other quote from Fritz: "...Where I
> part company with 'mainstream functionalism' (if there is such a thing) is
> over the question of whether performance factors (including frequency) are
> stated in the grammar itself...".  First, I have no idea what Main Stream
> Functionalism is. For the record, I have never accepted the position that
> performance factors, such as frequency, are "stated in the grammar itself".
> They have, obviously, to be stated somewhere in the theory that explains how
> grammars arise, through the three developmental trends we know. So if we
> accept that in order to understand how "the grammar itself" arises
> diachronically, ontogenetically or phylogenetically,  we must consider
> "performance factors", I would be quite happy to sign up on that, having spent
> a lifetime trying to understand just that. Once again, I would like to suggest
> an analogy from biology. In biological evolution, the interaction of adaptive
> behavior ("performance factors") with random genetic mutation is what actually
> controls adaptive selection--thus the emergence of new structures.  Mutations
> don't do the trick by themselves. So there is a strong precedent for
> "performance factors" at least contributing to the genesis of structures. (If
> you want a more authoritative source than me, look up an article by Fernald &
> White (2000) in M. Gazanniga (ed.) "The New Cognitive Neouroscience",
> Cambridge:MIT Press).
> 
> PS:  It is a pity that FUNKNET does not allow attachments, because I have 4
> (two diachronic, two child language) chapters strongly bearing on this
> discussion. I'll send them privately to anybody who expresses interest. They
> are also available on the Rice-lingfistics-12th-symposium website, I'm told).
> 
> Peace,  TG
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:
> > First, I would like to thank those of you who defended the
> > appropriateness of my posting and/or provided substantive comments on the
> > topics that I discussed in the paper.
> > 
> > Let me start by calling attention to what Ron Langacker has called the
> > 'Rule-List Fallacy'. Ron noted, completely correctly in my opinion, that
> > it was a fallacy to assume that lists have to be be excised from the
> > grammar of a language if rules that subsume them can be established. The
> > converse of this fallacy is equally fallacious: that rules have to be be
> > excised from the grammar of a language if lists can be established. Even
> > if it were the case that a huge percentage of language users' output
> > could be characterized by lists (formulas, fragments, etc.), that would
> > not exclude their also have a grammar composed of rules (or their
> > notional equivalents) that allow hearers to analyze unfamiliar
> > collocations and assign to them structure and meaning.
> > 
> > I have a couple of comments on Tom's useful posting of earlier today.
> > 
> > 1. Tom says that 'Fritz does not believe in grammaticalization'. I can't
> > imagine what it would mean 'not to believe in grammaticalization'. All
> > that I have ever said in print is that what is called
> > 'grammaticalization' is the by-product of a number of interacting
> > processes. There is no historical dimension to my analysis, it is true,
> > but that is because I endorsed (and briefly outlined) Boye and Harder's
> > account of the grammaticalization of complement clauses, which brings in
> > historical developments. By the way, it is not always the case that in
> > grammaticalization 'semantic change precedes syntactic readjustment'. For
> > examples of the opposite order of events, see chapter 5 of my book
> > 'Language Form and Language Function'.
> > 
> > 2. For quite a few years now I have endorsed the position that grammars
> > are to a large degree functionally motivated and that frequency is an
> > important factor shaping them. Where I part company with 'mainstream
> > functionalism' (if there is such a thing) is over the question of whether
> > performance factors (including frequency) are stated in the grammar
> > itself. I think not, though, obviously this is a complex and difficult
> > question. I did not take up this question in my paper because I believe
> > that one can make a strong case that sentential complements are
> > syntactically subordinate and that grammars are far more than 'fragments'
> > and 'formulas' without addressing the question of where the dividing line
> > between competence and performance might be. That's a topic for a
> > different paper.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > --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]
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Tom Givon wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear FUNK folks,
> > > 
> > > I think Fritz's article has already achieved something, at least
> > > potentially, that has been absent from FUNKNET for quite a
> > > while--serious substantive discussion of a relevant topic. So he's
> > > done us a service, however resentful of him some folks may be. I go
> > > with Barbara King in noting that the full article is available, and
> > > it is better to react to it rather than to the abstract. Since I have
> > > seen that article a couple of months ago, & read it in full, I think
> > > maybe I can share with you my (very brief) take on the issues Fritz's
> > > raised. This comes out of private correspondence with Paul Hopper,
> > > who berated me for not jumping to Sandy's defense. Here goes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Well , in my innocence I thought there were at least two empirical
> > > arguments in Fritz's article. (i) Semantic: It is not true that ALL
> > > uses of V-COMP constructions are the "grammaticalized" ones. Some are
> > > not. And (ii) Syntactic: The uses that are semantically
> > > "grammaticalized" are not necessarily syntactically one-clause--yet.
> > > Syntactic properties have to be demonstrated by syntactic tests,
> > > independently of semantics. This, by the way (unnoticed by Fritz) is
> > > a run-of-the-mill observation in grammaticalization: Semantic change
> > > precede syntactic re-adjustment. Tho of, course, Fritz does not
> > > believe in grammaticalization, so he couldn't see this part of his
> > > own argument.
> > > 
> > > What was missing from Fritz' article were the developmental
> > > ("emeregent") components, which are well backed up (I think) by
> > > frequency counts:
> > > (iii) That in diachrony & ontogeny (child language acquisition),
> > > V-COMP constructions first emerge is the "grammaticalized" (direct
> > > speech-act) use, and only later develop the other (two-clause) use
> > > (Diessel 2005). This omission exposes Fritz's lack of interest in the
> > > role of frequency distribution in the "emergence" of syntax, indeed
> > > his lack of interest in development/emergence. And
> > > (iv) The primacy of spoken language in these two
> > > developmental/emergent processes, as demonstrated by frequency
> > > distribution (in this case, of the "grammaticalized" sense). Both of
> > > these omissions are due to Fritz' abiding faith in "competence", and
> > > his disinterest in the role of "performance" (in this case, rising
> > > usage frequency) in creating "competence" (syntax). But Fritz's
> > > attitude is echoed by that of some confirmed functionalists, who
> > > believe only in emergence but not in any RELATIVELY stable product of
> > > emergence. So all in all, Fritz' article is indeed an interesting
> > > exemplar, and people could benefit from seeing its internal
> > > contradictions, or at the very least, it's lack of explanatory
> > > ambition.
> > > 
> > > The last comment I have goes to Paul's demonstration of usage
> > > frequencies from Google. What I missed in his demonstration is an
> > > explanation of what these frequencies mean. Frequency counts are only
> > > meaningful in CONTRASTS: "X is frequent, as against Y that isn't".
> > > And if not in x-y contrasts, than at least against some BASE OF
> > > COMPARISON--"what is the total population within which X appears a
> > > certain number of times?" So frequencies by themselves are not all
> > > that meaningful. Still, if you have a hypothesis you want to test,
> > > you can formulate a frequency count in a way that would be
> > > meaningful--and test your hypothesis.
> > > 
> > > This is, by the way, an argument I had with Andy Pawley when he came
> > > out with his formulaic usage papers from the 1970s and 1980s. The
> > > phenomenon was surely recognizable. What I wanted to know was (a)
> > > What was the frequency distribution of formulaic vs. non formulaic
> > > usage in particular texts. Or (b) in what communicative contexts do
> > > we have higher vs. lower frequencies of formulaic usage. Andy wasn't
> > > interested in frequencies at the time, so I talked one of my grad
> > > students, Lynn Yang, into doing her MA thesis on this issue. It was a
> > > two-part experimental study, one with two contrasting videos
> > > ("Chicken story" vs. "Breakfast Story", a contrast of cultural
> > > familiarity) the other with recorded coffee-shop chats under two
> > > contrasting conditions (familiars vs. strangers). The results were
> > > quite instructive. That MA thesis may be available wherever U. Oregon
> > > theses are available (somewhere in cyberspace, I guess).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best, TG
> > > 
> > > =====================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > > A: 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]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 


--
Timo Honkela, Chief Research Scientist, PhD, Docent
Adaptive Informatics Research Center
Helsinki University of Technology
P.O.Box 5400, FI-02015 TKK

timo.honkela at tkk.fi,  http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/