differences in form without differences in meaning

[T. Florian Jaeger]

Dear Ross,

I agree with you that there is a striking lack of studies on this question,
but that's not a function of this being impossible. For an example for how
to empirically study meaning-based theories of alternations, see Kinsey,
Jaeger, and Wasow, 2006 (LSA handout; it's also briefly summarized in my
thesis). Of course, the null hypothesis has to be that there is *no* meaning
difference, so that a hypothesis that there is a specific meaning difference
becomes testable. I agree with you, however, that it is therefore difficult
to conclude that there isn't *any* meaning difference.

Consider though that psycholinguists are in a similar situation. When they
claimed that speakers' preferences at choice points in production
(alternations) are driven by e.g. a preference to avoid speech suspension
(e.g. Ferreira and Dell 2000: the principle of immediate mention; see also
Levelt 1981 for an earlier mention of this idea), they had to come up with
*specific* hypotheses and operationalizations of these hypotheses. Not all
of them worked, some led to detours of a couple of years, but overall there
arguably has been a large amount of progress in understanding both the
factors (at the phenomenal level) and the mechanisms involved in the
observed preferences. Based on simply well-motivated and independently
documented processing principles speakers' preferences in alternations are
predicted at about 40-95% accuracy in modern models (depending on the
baseline). Even such fine grained behaviors as fluctations in the
pronunciation duration of words are modeled with about 60%+ accuracy (notice
also that 100% is not necessarily the goal, as the processes we study are
inherently variable and noisy). This still leaves a lot to be done, but I
would hold that this is this an achievement and that it is due to *not*
thinking that this question can't be evaluated ;).

HTH,
Florian

-------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:01:23 -0400
> From: Krekoski Ross <rosskrekoski at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] differences in form without differences in
>        meaning
> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID:
>        <CAGPr3-nYZUy5S-faqH8RZ0ZB9dcmng9f9B+q0zzy-OAaRtaQ_g at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The discussion surrounding this slight controversy is quite interesting.
> I'm
> simply a wimpy graduate student, but for what its worth, my perspective is
> that the problem seems to be intractable from an analytic perspective.
>
> If we are making up examples, what analytic basis do we have to say that
> the
> 'meaning' of two distinct syntactic forms is equivalent, and what precisely
> do we mean by 'equivalent' if we are to make that claim? I can't think of
> any solid basis for making this argument based on a single person's
> intuition alone, and if we are to base any potential findings on the
> intuitions of more than one person, how do we account for the differences
> in
> connotation that we will inevitably find? If we base our argument on
> pretheoretic notions of certain 'relevant' elements of syntax criterially
> determining semantic meaning, we end up with circularity.
>
> If we are looking at actual conversation or another type of real data, it
> would be difficult to argue for semantic equivalence anyways since you will
> never find two contextual environments that are precisely identical.
>
> I could be wrong, but my intution of the semantics of the question itself
> seems to suggest that the question is designed to elicit examples that
> 'prove' that there will be such examples rather than to actually
> investigate
> whether or not this is true outside of an idealized world.
>
> Ross Krekoski
>
>
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Toronto
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> wrote:
>
> > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
> >        funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >        https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >        funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >        funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> >      (john at research.haifa.ac.il)
> >   2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> >      (Joanna Nykiel)
> >   3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 (s.t. bischoff)
> >   4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> >      (T. Florian Jaeger)
> >   5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> >      (john at research.haifa.ac.il)
> >   6. updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA
> >      Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince (Sophia A. Malamud)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri,  5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300
> > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> >        meaning
> > To: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Message-ID: <1312565229.4e3c27edbeb24 at webmail.haifa.ac.il>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
> >
> > Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing
> the
> > same
> > stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native
> > speaker
> > myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb
> > 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a
> > book?')
> > would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?'
> > rather
> > than 'had you sex?').
> >
> > What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to
> what
> > extent the differences which appear in written language reflect
> differences
> > in
> > the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the
> > case
> > of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so
> there
> > didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between
> the
> > do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was
> > no
> > pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal
> > contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the
> > do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the
> spoken
> > language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in
> > less
> > formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century,
> > though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious
> > exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other
> verbs,
> > mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was
> used
> > a
> > lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked,
> > restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that
> > time
> > the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the
> spoken
> > language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning
> > difference
> > disappeared.
> > John
> >
> >
> > Quoting Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>:
> >
> > >
> > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved
> > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps,
> > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor
> > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the
> > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories".
> > >
> > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The
> > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written
> > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual
> > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language.
> > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part
> > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language,
> > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form,
> and
> > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of
> a
> > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve.
> > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the
> > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in
> > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is
> > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly
> > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested
> to
> > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive
> > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior,
> perhaps
> > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers,  TG
> > >
> > > ============
> > >
> > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan
> > Pintzuk I
> > > did
> > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change
> > which
> > > was
> > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th
> > > century.
> > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the
> older
> > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant
> factor
> > > being
> > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct
> > > object,
> > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was
> > also
> > > a
> > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the
> > century
> > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the
> verb,
> > > with
> > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS
> > > construction
> > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything
> > > concrete
> > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many
> non-semantic
> > > factors,
> > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in
> > meaning
> > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that
> the
> > > subject
> > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place
> > where
> > > the
> > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird
> passed
> > in
> > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a
> > parallel
> > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was
> at
> > the
> > > time
> > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that
> in
> > > general
> > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a
> > > non-clitic
> > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the
> > > bird?'
> > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would
> > have
> > > been
> > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than
> > this,
> > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were
> no
> > > more
> > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive
> > > > semantically-based alternation.
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quoting jess tauber<phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just
> > on
> > > the
> > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the
> > > bird?'
> > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality.
> The
> > > first
> > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least
> > for
> > > my
> > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs.
> 'Do
> > you
> > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially)
> as
> > > much
> > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it
> > > perhaps
> > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances
> > > pronominal
> > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear
> > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from
> the
> > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between
> > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which
> > > discourse
> > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality
> > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context
> > > sensitive
> > > >> and all that rubbish.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jess Tauber
> > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> > University
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200
> > From: Joanna Nykiel <joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl>
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> >        meaning
> > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Message-ID: <20110805233601.92443b062t74dsm4 at poczta.us.edu.pl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> >        format="flowed"
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic
> > difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument
> > Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as
> > those below:
> >
> > (1)
> > A: And we?ll compare notes some more.
> > B: Compare notes, on what?
> > A: On you, honey-pie. What else?
> > (Corpus of Contemporary American English)
> >
> > (2)
> > A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old?
> > B: Four.
> > A: By four years old. Wow.
> > (Corpus of Contemporary American English)
> >
> > "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's
> > turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting
> > genuine variation.
> > I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP
> > and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present
> > simple tense in Early Modern English.
> >
> > Joanna Nykiel
> >
> >
> >
> > Joanna Nykiel
> > Assistant Professor
> > English Department
> > University of Silesia
> > Grota-Roweckiego 5
> > Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland
> > E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl
> > Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/
> > ???
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Uniwersytet ??l??ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400
> > From: "s.t. bischoff" <bischoff.st at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2
> > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Message-ID:
> >        <CABBCDhqgvBarCoSKpaFpQ-orwwcqw8yYV=
> b1Rv8KDcVSuVyLnA at mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets
> but
> > have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there
> > somewhere...
> >
> > (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding
> > (their)
> > bikes all day.
> >
> > (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job.
> >
> > (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites.
> >
> > (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses
> > at
> > 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and  "horseback"
> > might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be
> > the
> > case...folks only ride one way)
> >
> > cheers,
> > Shannon
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
> > >        funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >        https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >        funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >        funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >   1. difference in form without difference in meaning
> > >      (Frederick J Newmeyer)
> > >   2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> > >      (Daniel Everett)
> > >   3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon)
> > >   4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> > >      (Angus Grieve-Smith)
> > >   5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber)
> > >   6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> > >      (Victor K. Golla)
> > >   7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon)
> > >   8.  References (Sylvester OSU)
> > >   9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning
> > >      (john at research.haifa.ac.il)
> > >  10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning
> > > To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> > > Message-ID:
> > >        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1108041417270.26399 at hymn33.u.washington.edu>
> > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > Dear Funknetters,
> > >
> > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > >
> > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > English,
> > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see
> > the
> > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning
> > differences
> > > here?
> > >
> > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400
> > > From: Daniel Everett <dan at daneverett.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> > > Cc: Funknet <FUNKNET at mailman.rice.edu>
> > > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > >
> > >
> > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation.
> > >
> > > Not sure that exists either.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Funknetters,
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two
> syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > > >
> > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did
> > you
> > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle
> meaning
> > > differences here?
> > > >
> > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600
> > > From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that,
> > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon
> > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar
> > > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some
> > > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two
> > > major venues: (a)  the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will
> > > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this
> > > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a
> progressive
> > > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples
> > > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more
> > > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an
> > > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same
> > > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this
> > > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that
> > > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value.
> > >
> > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that
> > > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old
> > > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s)
> > > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in
> > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in
> > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't
> > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change.  TG
> > >
> > > ==============
> > >
> > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:
> > > > Dear Funknetters,
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two
> syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > > >
> > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did
> > you
> > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle
> meaning
> > > differences here?
> > > >
> > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400
> > > From: Angus Grieve-Smith <grvsmth at panix.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like
> that,
> > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon
> > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the
> > > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that
> > > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which
> > > > there are two major venues: (a)  the old firms will obsolesce; (b)
> the
> > > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to
> > > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect
> > > > vs. a progressive dialect".
> > >
> > >     Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000
> > > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177):
> > >
> > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate
> > > the distinct forms with distinct communities.  For example, I heard a
> > > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used
> > > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while
> > > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical
> > > linguists and their students."
> > >
> > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted
> > > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the
> dominant
> > > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative
> > > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in
> > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like
> in
> > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't
> > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change.  TG
> > >
> > >     I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning
> > > during that entire time.  In my theatrical data on French negation,
> > > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of
> > > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously
> represents
> > > predicate negation.  Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition,
> while
> > > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation.
> > >
> > >     Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it
> > > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone.  That is also the time
> > > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call
> > > "actuation").  I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation:
> > >
> > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808
> > >
> > > --
> > >                                -Angus B. Grieve-Smith
> > >                                Saint John's University
> > >                                grvsmth at panix.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 5
> > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
> > > From: jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID:
> > >        <
> > > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > >
> > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on
> > the
> > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the
> > bird?'
> > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The
> > first
> > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least
> for
> > my
> > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do
> > you
> > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as
> > much
> > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it
> > perhaps
> > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances
> > pronominal
> > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear
> > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the
> > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between
> > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which
> > discourse
> > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality
> > > interrelationally? Languages with
> > >  the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish.
> > >
> > > Jess Tauber
> > > goldenratio at earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700
> > > From: "Victor K. Golla" <Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>,
> > >        funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID:
> > >        <CAKxvog709RyMzihs6xwzT4e6=
> > 50imWp6yM30E6mh8t7j5rY6FA at mail.gmail.com
> > > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > >
> > > Fritz--
> > >
> > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> > > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently
> > >
> > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom
> > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain
> > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning")
> > >
> > >          implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific
> > >          meaning.  If the ... forms are different, we suppose that
> their
> > >          meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that
> there
> > >          are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45).
> > >
> > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid
> > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in
> > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is
> > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of
> > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption
> > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158).
> > >
> > > --Victor Golla
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer
> > > <fjn at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > > Dear Funknetters,
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two
> syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > > >
> > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did
> > you
> > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle
> meaning
> > > differences here?
> > > >
> > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 7
> > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600
> > > From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize
> > > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean
> > > position. Or Chomskian.  TG
> > >
> > >
> > > ================
> > > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote:
> > > > Fritz--
> > > >
> > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> > > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently
> > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to
> whom
> > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain
> > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning")
> > > >
> > > >            implies that each linguistic form has a constant and
> > specific
> > > >            meaning.  If the ... forms are different, we suppose that
> > > their
> > > >            meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that
> > > there
> > > >            are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45).
> > > >
> > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid
> > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics"
> in
> > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is
> > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of
> > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption
> > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158).
> > > >
> > > > --Victor Golla
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer
> > > > <fjn at u.washington.edu>  wrote:
> > > >> Dear Funknetters,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two
> > syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > > >>
> > > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did
> > you
> > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle
> meaning
> > > differences here?
> > > >>
> > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> --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]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 8
> > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST)
> > > From: Sylvester OSU <sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr>
> > > Subject: [FUNKNET]  References
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > >
> > > Dear Funknetters,
> > >
> > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to
> > > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic.
> > Kindly
> > > please send such to:
> > >
> > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr
> > >
> > > Thanking you in advance.
> > >
> > > Sylvester
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 9
> > > Date: Fri,  5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300
> > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>
> > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
> > >
> > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan
> Pintzuk
> > I
> > > did
> > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change
> which
> > > was
> > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th
> > > century.
> > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older
> > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor
> > > being
> > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct
> > > object,
> > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was
> > also
> > > a
> > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the
> > century
> > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb,
> > > with
> > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS
> > > construction
> > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything
> > > concrete
> > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic
> > > factors,
> > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in
> > meaning
> > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the
> > > subject
> > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place
> > where
> > > the
> > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed
> > in
> > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a
> parallel
> > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at
> > the
> > > time
> > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in
> > > general
> > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a
> > > non-clitic
> > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the
> > > bird?'
> > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would
> have
> > > been
> > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than
> > this,
> > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no
> > > more
> > > than two generations when there was something like a productive
> > > semantically-based alternation.
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just
> on
> > > the
> > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the
> > > bird?'
> > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality.
> The
> > > first
> > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least
> > for
> > > my
> > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs.
> 'Do
> > > you
> > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially)
> as
> > > much
> > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it
> > > perhaps
> > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances
> > > pronominal
> > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear
> > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from
> the
> > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between
> > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which
> > > discourse
> > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality
> > > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context
> > > sensitive
> > > > and all that rubbish.
> > > >
> > > > Jess Tauber
> > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> University
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 10
> > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600
> > > From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> > >        meaning
> > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > >
> > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved
> > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps,
> > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor
> > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the
> > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories".
> > >
> > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The
> > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written
> > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual
> > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language.
> > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part
> > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language,
> > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form,
> and
> > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of
> a
> > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve.
> > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the
> > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in
> > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is
> > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly
> > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested
> to
> > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive
> > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior,
> perhaps
> > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers,  TG
> > >
> > > ============
> > >
> > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan
> > Pintzuk
> > > I did
> > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change
> > which
> > > was
> > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th
> > > century.
> > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the
> older
> > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant
> factor
> > > being
> > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct
> > > object,
> > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was
> > > also a
> > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the
> > > century
> > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the
> verb,
> > > with
> > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS
> > > construction
> > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything
> > > concrete
> > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many
> non-semantic
> > > factors,
> > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in
> > > meaning
> > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that
> the
> > > subject
> > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place
> > > where the
> > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird
> passed
> > > in
> > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a
> > parallel
> > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was
> at
> > > the time
> > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that
> in
> > > general
> > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a
> > > non-clitic
> > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the
> > > bird?'
> > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would
> > have
> > > been
> > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than
> > > this,
> > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were
> no
> > > more
> > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive
> > > > semantically-based alternation.
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quoting jess tauber<phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just
> > on
> > > the
> > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the
> > > bird?'
> > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality.
> The
> > > first
> > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least
> > for
> > > my
> > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs.
> 'Do
> > > you
> > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially)
> as
> > > much
> > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it
> > > perhaps
> > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances
> > > pronominal
> > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear
> > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from
> the
> > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between
> > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which
> > > discourse
> > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality
> > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context
> > > sensitive
> > > >> and all that rubbish.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jess Tauber
> > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> > University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2
> > > **************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400
> > From: "T. Florian Jaeger" <tiflo at csli.stanford.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> >        meaning
> > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Cc: Tom Wasow <twasow at gmail.com>
> > Message-ID:
> >        <CAG2Vd7iDnQVNx7PTq_z83m+HvS1Q0HXiZzXE1y=J41=
> dy9mqvg at mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Hi Fritz,
> >
> > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I
> am,
> > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if
> we're
> > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual
> > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully
> > defined if we don't commit to this assumption).
> >
> > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two
> > different
> > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might
> > seem
> > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer.
> > Meaning
> > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very
> likely
> > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable.
> >
> > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related
> > forms
> > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that
> > differ
> > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you
> > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are
> > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in
> > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced
> > to
> > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely
> to
> > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't
> kept
> > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor,
> > 2005
> > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so
> > apparent
> > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in
> > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford)
> > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning
> > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We
> > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course,
> doesn't
> > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used
> to
> > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement
> > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all
> of
> > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them
> agreed
> > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact
> opposite
> > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite
> > instructive:
> > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but
> that
> > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully
> associated
> > with one of the two forms.
> >
> > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists
> > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between
> > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive
> > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme
> on
> > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as
> evidence
> > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as
> > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their
> > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many
> > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al
> > 2009;
> > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews).
> >
> > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up
> > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for
> many
> > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are
> just
> > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the
> > two
> > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes
> > the
> > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for
> > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain
> > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same
> > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument
> order
> > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the
> > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to
> > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle
> > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet
> > my
> > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable
> > relative
> > and complement clauses are less likely to have a
> relativizer/complementizer
> > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission,
> > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and
> > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this
> > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked
> > differ for each of those cases.
> >
> > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive
> to
> > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of
> > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know
> > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that
> knowledge
> > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster
> > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material
> > after
> > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they
> don't
> > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald,
> > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations
> > can
> > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also
> likely
> > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from
> > the
> > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be
> > quite
> > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences.
> One
> > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the
> possibility
> > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two
> > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of
> the
> > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011).
> >
> > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is
> > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic
> > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this
> > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different
> > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the
> > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g.
> > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell,
> > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987).
> >
> > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to
> > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning
> distinct
> > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability
> > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence
> for
> > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two
> > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the
> > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc.,
> > which
> > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw).
> >
> > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need
> > to
> > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning
> > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established
> > theories
> > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production.
> >
> > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it
> > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;).
> >
> > florian
> >
> > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged
> > meaning
> > differences for the ditransitive alternation?
> >
> >
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning
> > > To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> > > Message-ID:
> > >        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1108041417270.26399 at hymn33.u.washington.edu>
> > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > Dear Funknetters,
> > >
> > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related
> > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is
> > taken
> > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> way
> > of
> > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do
> > not
> > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once
> > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences.
> > One
> > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I
> > knew
> > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > differences.
> > >
> > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > English,
> > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see
> > the
> > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning
> > differences
> > > here?
> > >
> > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> meaning
> > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --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]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sat,  6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300
> > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
> >        meaning
> > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" <tiflo at csli.stanford.edu>
> > Cc: Tom Wasow <twasow at gmail.com>, funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Message-ID: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552 at webmail.haifa.ac.il>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
> >
> > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only
> > lexical
> > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it
> > include
> > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors
> in
> > particular because they are common factors which affect voice
> alternations
> > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are
> included
> > as
> > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there
> > are
> > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences.
> >
> > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message
> > about
> > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of
> > which
> > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because
> I
> > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical
> > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological
> > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations.
> And
> > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc.,
> > there's
> > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And
> heaviness
> > (for
> > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was
> > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g.
> 'Did
> > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?'
> >
> > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience
> so
> > far
> > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been
> able
> > to
> > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive,
> > argative
> > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish
> 'quiero
> > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like
> > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore,
> > watashi)
> > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly
> > different
> > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the
> > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn
> out
> > to
> > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning
> > difference
> > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive
> > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if
> I
> > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference.
> >
> > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning
> > distinction
> > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that
> > there
> > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers
> are
> > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about
> > the
> > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will
> say
> > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is
> > stronger--but
> > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation
> > based
> > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some
> people
> > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the
> > other
> > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the
> experience
> > of
> > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic
> > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are
> > 'stronger'
> > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true
> > for
> > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it
> > can't
> > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really
> > worth
> > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them.
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" <tiflo at csli.stanford.edu>:
> >
> > > Hi Fritz,
> > >
> > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I
> > am,
> > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if
> > we're
> > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from
> actual
> > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully
> > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption).
> > >
> > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two
> > different
> > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might
> > seem
> > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer.
> > Meaning
> > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very
> > likely
> > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable.
> > >
> > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related
> > forms
> > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that
> > differ
> > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which
> you
> > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are
> > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in
> > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to
> reduced
> > to
> > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely
> > to
> > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't
> > kept
> > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor,
> > 2005
> > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so
> > apparent
> > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in
> > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at
> Stanford)
> > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning
> > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without.
> We
> > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course,
> > doesn't
> > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used
> > to
> > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement
> > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost
> all
> > of
> > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them
> > agreed
> > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact
> > opposite
> > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite
> > instructive:
> > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but
> > that
> > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully
> > associated
> > > with one of the two forms.
> > >
> > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists
> > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between
> > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive
> > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme
> > on
> > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as
> > evidence
> > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as
> > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on
> their
> > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many
> > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al
> > 2009;
> > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews).
> > >
> > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up
> > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for
> > many
> > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are
> > just
> > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between
> the
> > two
> > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that
> sometimes
> > the
> > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for
> > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to
> maintain
> > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the
> same
> > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument
> > order
> > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in
> the
> > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to
> > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle
> > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't
> bet
> > my
> > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable
> > relative
> > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a
> > relativizer/complementizer
> > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission,
> > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy
> and
> > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective
> this
> > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked
> > > differ for each of those cases.
> > >
> > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly
> sensitive
> > to
> > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty
> of
> > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders
> know
> > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that
> > knowledge
> > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much
> faster
> > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material
> > after
> > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they
> > don't
> > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and
> MacDonald,
> > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based
> expectations
> > can
> > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also
> > likely
> > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me
> (from
> > the
> > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be
> > quite
> > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences.
> > One
> > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the
> > possibility
> > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between
> two
> > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of
> > the
> > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011).
> > >
> > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2)
> is
> > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic
> > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this
> > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different
> > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as
> the
> > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see,
> e.g.
> > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and
> Dell,
> > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987).
> > >
> > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading
> to
> > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning
> > distinct
> > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability
> > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence
> > for
> > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two
> > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of
> the
> > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc.,
> > which
> > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw).
> > >
> > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would
> need
> > to
> > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning
> > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established
> > theories
> > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production.
> > >
> > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if
> it
> > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;).
> > >
> > > florian
> > >
> > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged
> > meaning
> > > differences for the ditransitive alternation?
> > >
> > >
> > >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning
> > > > To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1108041417270.26399 at hymn33.u.washington.edu>
> > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > > >
> > > > Dear Funknetters,
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two
> syntactically-related
> > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning'
> is
> > > taken
> > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another
> > way
> > > of
> > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in
> > early
> > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely
> do
> > not
> > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples,
> once
> > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning
> differences.
> > One
> > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without
> > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs.
> 'I
> > knew
> > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning
> > > > differences.
> > > >
> > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern
> > English,
> > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you
> see
> > the
> > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning
> > > differences
> > > > here?
> > > >
> > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that
> > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with
> > meaning
> > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400
> > From: "Sophia A. Malamud" <smalamud at brandeis.edu>
> > Subject: [FUNKNET] updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse -
> >        LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince
> > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> > Message-ID:
> >        <CAOVbHfPAOLUPFOftTLsWSfyAsTQqJXHoBz+bS7=
> sjj_QZyYz5Q at mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Dear funknetters,
> >
> > Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and
> > format!
> >
> > With regards,
> > Sophia
> >
> > Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting
> > * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012
> > *
> > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and
> > Discourse
> >
> > Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics,
> > producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of
> > informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic
> > constructions,
> > including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English,
> > language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in
> the
> > Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the
> use
> > of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the
> > advent of electronic corpora.
> >
> > We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation,
> 5
> > min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse
> > phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of
> > linguistic
> > expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and
> > reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that
> > emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on
> > experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged.
> >
> > Please email all submissions to the session organisers at
> > lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA
> session
> > abstract*". Please include the following information in the email:
> >        -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author
> >        -- The title of the paper
> >
> > The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5.
> >
> > The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines:
> >
> >   1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format.
> >   2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than
> 1000
> >   words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11
> > point
> >   and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all
> > sides.
> >   References should be included on a third page.
> >   3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you
> >   identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith
> > (1992)...I"),
> >   the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be
> > sure
> >   to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then
> "Properties,"
> >   removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving
> > before
> >   uploading it.
> >   4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be
> >   considered.
> >   5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA
> >   meeting.
> >   6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting
> Handbook,
> >   will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and
> > authors
> >   must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The
> > deadline
> >   will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be
> >   withdrawn from the program.
> >   7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference.
> >
> >
> > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
> > **************************************
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in
>        meaning
> To: "T. Florian Jaeger" <tiflo at csli.stanford.edu>
> Cc: Judith Degen <jdegen at bcs.rochester.edu>, Funknet
>        <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>,     Tom Wasow <twasow at gmail.com>,
>        john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Message-ID:
>        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1108061202450.9063 at hymn12.u.washington.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Dear Florian, et al.,
>
> Thank you all so much for your contributions to the line of discussion that
> I initiated. There is no way that I can give point-by-point commentary on
> all of the postings, but then nobody would expect that I should do so. Just
> a few comments.
>
> First, it's clear -- and Florian cited several references -- that variants
> might differ not so much in their meaning (even broadly defined), but rather
> in *how relatively effectively* they can convey a particular meaning given
> particular discourse and other background conditions. So subject sentences
> ('that he'll go home is likely') may or may not have identical meanings as
> extraposed sentences ('it's likely that he'll go home'). But clearly,
> conditions that are to a degree meaning-independent are at work in speaker
> choice of one variant over another: the length of the subject, the stylistic
> register, and so on. One could make the same point with respect to
> heavy-NP-shifted items versus non-shifted ones. The different focal
> properties associated with the different positions (which we can think of as
> aspects of meaning) are relevant, but do not suffice to explain fully why
> some NPs are shifted and some are not.
>
> One of the most frustrating facts for the theoretical linguist is that the
> analyses that we come up with are not always (possibly not often) confirmed
> by particular psycholinguistic studies. And here the problem cuts across
> theoretical frameworks. Consider for example the abstract generative
> phonological analyses based on alternations; the minisculey-fine semantic
> distinctions posited by cognitive linguists as a basis for syntactic
> structure; and the functionally-motivated hierarchies that form a basis for
> a lot of functionalist theorizing. The conflicting experimental results with
> respect to the 'psychological reality' of these various analyses have led a
> lot of grammarians to be cynical about what psycholinguists can offer them
> as an aid to or as a check on theory construction. That's lamentable of
> course.
>
> In his second posting, Florian referred to 'functional theories of meaning
> differences', citing work by Fox, Thompson, and Mulac. These are really at
> one extreme end of the functionalist spectrum, given the role that they
> impart to 'fragments' and 'memorized formulas' as being at the centre of
> language, as opposed to grammatical processes (as the term is understood
> within whatever framework). These fall down in explaining how languages
> users have the ability to *interpret* input that they have not previously
> encountered. As I argued in Newmeyer 2010, this interpretive capacity (among
> other things) points to the need for a stored grammar.
>
> Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. What conversational English tells us about the
> nature of  grammar: A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements.
> Usage and structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder, ed. by Kasper Boye and
> Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The paper is
> also available on LingBuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679.
>
> --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]
>
>
>
>
>
> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 4
> **************************************
>