15.625, Qs: Object Deletion; Lexicography Software

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-15-625. Mon Feb 16 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.625, Qs: Object Deletion; Lexicography Software

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:40:08 -0500 (EST)
From:  Hiroaki Tanaka <tanaka at kansaigaidai.ac.jp>
Subject:  Object deletion and "and"

2)
Date:  Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From:  Nobuko Koyama-Murakami <lingmana at hotmail.com>
Subject:  Lexicography software

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:40:08 -0500 (EST)
From:  Hiroaki Tanaka <tanaka at kansaigaidai.ac.jp>
Subject:  Object deletion and "and"

Dear all,

I'm wondering if the object deletion of ''eat'' is possible in the
following well-known phrases: ''You can' fish and not eat.''. My
research point is two-folds. One is that poeple sometimes can and
sometimes cannot find a specific and general obeject in the preceding
VP even if the VP doesn't contain the precise NP. The other is that
''and'' is interpreted not in ''underspecified'' way like Relevance
Theoretic account, but in some highly ''default'' and ''logical'' way.

(1)I'm wondering whether or not the object of ''eat'' in ''You can't
fish and not eat'' is deleted. If so, what does it refer to? I have
two interpretations from several native speakers of English. One is
(a): it refers to the specific obeject, the fish you caught, hidden in
the preceding VP. The other is (b): it refers to general eating
activity.
	
(a) It is not possible for you to catch fish and then not to eat the
fish you caught.  Or You take the trouble to go fishing and when you
catch some fish,if you don't eat them, it's a waste.
	
(b) If you're going to fish, you need to eat (a meal).  Or You can't
fish without eating(= having a meal).

Reading (b) is an intransitive use of ''eat'' just like ''drink
(alcohol)'' and ''read (books)'' without a specific object.
	
(2)Another problem in this construction is whether you can always
paraphrase ''and'' into ''if''.
	
(c) You can't commit a crime and not be punished.-->If you commit a
crime, you must be punished. (Approximately = You commit a crime and
then you will be punished.)

(d) You can't get good grades and not study-->If you (want to) get
good grades, you must study (hard). Or If you study (hard), you get
good grades. (Approximately = ? You get good grades and you study

Can ''if'' sentence in (d) be parapharable into ''and''? I think it
will be more appropirate to put ''so'' after ''and'' like ''You get
good grades and so(that means) you (must) study hard.'' But ''then''
can't be put into it; ''You get good grades and then you study hard.''

''And'' in (d) is a clear example of ''epistemic domain 'and''' in
E. Sweetser's(1990) sense. However she doesn't seem to think that the
order of ''A and B'' in the domain can be reversed in the prsent
construction ''You can't do A and not do B''.

Please don't hesitate to reply to these questions. I will post a
summary. Thank you very much in advance.
	
Best wishes,
	
Hiroaki Tanaka
	
Professor of English Linguistics, Kansai Gaidai University, Hirakata
City, Osaka, Japan

tanaka at kansaigaidai.ac.jp


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From:  Nobuko Koyama-Murakami <lingmana at hotmail.com>
Subject:  Lexicography software

Dear all,

Asking for help!!!  I am in the search for software most appropriate
and easy to use for the purpose of contrastive analysis of two sets of
lexicon (or simply vocabulary lists).  I am aware that some people use
Excel for that purpose, and I assume that for more sophisticated
analyses and data complilation, some corpus building softwares are out
there, too.  But I am still searching for other ''usable'' softwares
for computer idiots like me.  If anyone has any good advice or
suggestions for any software, please reply to lingmana at hotmail.com.
Thanks in advance!

Nobuko Koyama-Murakami
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Applied Japanese, and Applied English
STUT, Taiwan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-625