hypercorrection/grammatical evolution (was: murky days)

[Benjamin Fortson]

Lynne, this interests me (sorry for the late response--I've been away for
a few days in the land of blackened redfish). Perhaps I should know this,
but do you subscribe to the view that claims a continuum between lexicon
and grammer? From what I know of such theories (not a lot), they don't
deny the existence of lexical items as individual units per se, do
they...?

Ben

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Lynne Murphy wrote:

> --On Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:56 pm -0500 Laurence Horn
> <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Notice that again we're talking about single words here either.  I
> > thought McCawley's claim had more to do with blocking lexical items
> > whose derivation would violate syntactic constraints (in particular
> > Ross constraints), e.g. a word that would mean 'to kiss a girl who is
> > allergic to' or 'to drink coffee and'.  As others pointed out, this
> > is hard to test because of different paraphrase possibilities.  One
> > example I remember being brought up was 'to cuckold', which
> > could--although it doesn't have to--be regarded as derived from 'to
> > have sex with the wife of', thereby violating the complex NP
> > constraint.
>
> Yep, I know it's supposed to be about single words, but what does this mean
> for approaches which claim a continuum between lexicon and grammar?  Do
> single words still have special status?
>
> (Lynne and Larry go off on a tangent again...)
>
> Lynne
>
> Dr M Lynne Murphy
> Lecturer in Linguistics
> Acting Director, MA in Applied Linguistics
> School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences
> University of Sussex
> Brighton BN1 9QH
> UK
>
> phone +44-(0)1273-678844
> fax   +44-(0)1273-671320
>