"Generative" serves them right

Sat Apr 28 21:32:17 UTC 2001

One of the main distinctions between the MP and most other theories of
formal grammar (HPSG, LFG, CG, TAG, and Arc Pair Grammar, for example),
is that the MP incorporates conditions on sets of derivations
(transderivational constraints) of either a global or a local character,
while the other theories rely soley on local conditions on structures. A
second major distinction is that most versions of the MP have only two
interface levels, LF and PF, which are the output of a
derivation. By contrast, the other theories generally define syntactic,
semantic, and phonological well formedness in tandem at every level of
structure. David Johnson and I explored these distinctions and others in
detail in our book Local Constraints VS. Economy, CSLI, 1999. Together
with Bob Levine we have been discussing these issues in the context of
a debate with MP advocates in recent issues of NLLT. Our main concern is
to show that the notion of grammar as a system exhibiting "perfect
design", which lies at the cores of Chomsky's current program, has no
obvious content. To the the extent that this is the case, the program
is conceptually ungrounded. This seems to us to be a deeper and more
basic flaw than the particular computational and empirical shortcomings
of the framework (and we have tried to point out some of these in our
book). We continue to find it remarkable that so many adherents of the
MP have been apparently willing to accept the notion of perfect design
without demanding clarification or discussion of this concept. y
                                    Shalom

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Liz Coppock wrote:

> First, in light of the necessity to label the
> framework associated with Chomsky (despite whatever
> inaccuracy it might presuppose), I would like to
> suggest "transformational grammar".
>
> Sergi, you say that Chomsky "reinvented" SLASH, and
> called it 'probe'.  Do you mean that SLASH and 'probe'
> are notational variants (laying aside who thought of
> it first)?
>
> Are there other such analogies?
> To what extent are they notational variances?
> Where does an analogy between HPSG and
> transformational grammar break down?
>
>
> Elizabeth
>
> --- sergi balari <Sergi.Balari at uab.es> wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I've been following this recent discussion about the
> > use of the term
> > 'generative' and, finally, I decided to abandon for
> > a while my Peninsular
> > isolation just to disagree a bit with everybody.
> > Even with good, old, Homeric
> > Karel, although, this time, a bit less than usual.
> >
> > Being myself born as a dissident (and pehaps still
> > living as one), I find
> > these discussions about 'labels' a bit Byzantine. I
> > sounds me too much as if
> > the matter reduced to vindicate who is the keeper of
> > the real truth and to
> > flagwaving, trying to show whose is bluer or reder
> > or brighter. Frankly, I
> > don't see this is taking us anywhere, apart from
> > being very happy anytime some
> > eminent MIT professor is magnanimous enough to make
> > some reference to other
> > frameworks in a footnote.
> >
> > To me, the problem is of a much deeper nature. It's
> > a question of intellectual
> > honesty and, for example, I find extremely important
> > what Shalom Lappin, Bob
> > Levine and David Johnson are doing by showing how
> > uncritical and oblivious is
> > much of the research that is being carried out in
> > linguistics. If Chomsky has
> > reinvented SLASH in his Minimalist Inquiries (he
> > calls it a 'probe'), we want
> > this acknowledged in print (and, preferably, not in
> > a footnote). This is the
> > ideal situation, unfortunately not one most of us
> > will be able to see in the
> > near future, but one I believe should concern
> > everyone.
> >
> > So, if they are happy with their 'generative' flag,
> > let's them keep it and
> > play with it, while trying to build something
> > different. Flags are boring,
> > science and dialectics (sorry, Karel) is (are?) fun.
> >
> > Have a nice Spring.
> >
> > Sergio
> >
> >
> >
> > Karel Oliva wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > being almost born as a dissident (beware,
> > youngsters: this is *not* a kind
> > > of a toothpaste !), I have to disagree with the
> > general opinion, as usual
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Liz, you have nothing to apologize for.
> > >
> > > To me, "generative" is an *extremely felicitous*
> > term for the kind of
> > > grammar as GB/P&P/MP and the like. I guess that
> > even Homer, had he
> > > mentioned GB in Illias & Odyssey, would have
> > sticked to this epitheton
> > > constans, as his did with the "light-footed
> > Achilleus" or "thunder-reigning
> > > Zeus" (sorry for the miserable translations, I
> > indeed did not read these
> > > works in English).
> > >
> > > The point about GB/MP and the like is that (in the
> > above epic sense) they
> > > indeed very much deserve the attribute
> > "generative" because they are -  at
> > > least as long as they rely on transformations,
> > which is the rule -
> > > GENERATIVE-ONLY. It is their distinguishing
> > property. In the sense that one
> > > cannot really PARSE with them, definitely not if
> > one takes this task
> > > seriously (yes, I do know there were attempts by
> > Barton, Weinberg, Millies
> > > and others, but I also do know they all were not
> > really successful to put
> > > it mildly - correct me if I am mistaken, at best
> > by pointing out a working
> > > GB/MP wide-coverage parser). That is, something
> > like generating one by one
> > > all possible strings and  checking each time
> > whether the string created is
> > > the one to be parsed, is not a serious approach to
> > parsing to me.
> > >
> > > However, the story has *more* to it than that it
> > is difficult at best (and
> > > I would say imposible) to work out a reasonable
> > GB/MP parser.
> > > The true point is that human beings not only
> > generate language, but,
> > > astonishing as this fact seems to be for  many GB
> > proponents, human beings
> > > also tend to understand it. And while such
> > theories as HPSG, GPG, LFG, ...
> > > describe the language in such a way that the
> > distinction between language
> > > production and language comprehension plays no
> > (major) role, GB/P&P/MP
> > > mainstream is oriented on production (generation)
> > only, while it is
> > > difficult even to think about modelling
> > understanding. For those who do not
> > > know the old-established fact: the point is not
> > that one cannot invert a
> > > transformation creating  from an "input"
> > structure" an "output" one -
> > > indeed this can be done, provided one has the
> > "output" structure. The
> > > trouble is we do not have any structure when we
> > parse, we have just the
> > > string.
> > >
> > > In this sense, GB/P&P/MP cannot be adequate
> > theories of human language -  a
> > > GB/P&P/MP description of a language is only a
> > "generative" grammar, but it
> > > isn't and cannot be a real grammar.
> > > In this sense, the attribute "generative"
> > describes GB/P&P/MP-based
> > > grammars absolutely correctly, distinguishing them
> > from grammars which can
> > > do more.
> > >
> > > k
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sergio Balari Ravera
> > Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
> > Àrea de Lingüística General
> > Departament de Filologia Catalana
> > Facultat de Lletres, Edifici B
> > E-09193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)
> > Spain
> > Phone: +34 935 812 350 Fax: +34 935 812 782
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>