GG and change

[Isidore Dyen]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Isidore Dyen wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I believe that you are heading in the right direction. Generative Grammar,
> whatever it is, is an analysis of grmmar. It assumes that a language,
> despite the fact that it is subject to change, is at the moment of
> analysis, a static object. There are certain configurations in that
> analysis that permit the i9nference of prior states, in some cases alone,
> in others when combined with other information. If they are alone, they
> results are usually regarded as internal reconstruction. When combined
> with other information, well, how to clasify the inference depends on the
> particular case. In any case the key consideration for GG is that it
> regards the language for the nonce as static and is thus an analytical
> procedure. As for a language faculty, what is required is a facility for
> acquiring a phonemic system, something that is lacking in the other apes.
> My impression is that the others also seem to lack the ability to order
> meanigful symbols even though they can acquire some facility in handling
> symbols. Perhaps the language facility can be reduced to phoneme
> acceptance and the ability to recognize that the ordering AB is not the
> same as BA.
 
I should have made clear that in modeling ordering (or sequencing) AB
means B after A and
vice versa for BA. Chances are good that animals would distinguish between
simultaneous, but differently arranged identical items, but I don't know
of any testing.
Another factor in the language faculty is recognition of context since
that
allows for the distinction between homonyms. It may be that this facility
can be present in other animals; I don't know of a test for it either.
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Robert R. Ratcliffe wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > bwald wrote:
> >
> > > ----------------------------Original
> > > message----------------------------
> > > Before I forget, I have some comments on Robert Ratcliffe's last
> > > message. He states:
> > >
> > > >... if one takes seriously the generative claim that the
> > > >goal of formal linguistic analysis is the discovery of an innate,
> > > >biologically determined language faculty, then you sever the link
> > > >between historical and formal linguistics.
> > >
>