psychological reality of LFG

[Joan Bresnan]

just a brief note: some recent experimental work on sentence
production supports the lfg architecture as opposed to other
linguistic architectures.  See Pickering, Branigan,
and McLean (2002) "Constituent Structure is formulated in One Stage",
J. Memory and Lg 46 and follow the references there.



> Hello. I'm working on a senior thesis discussing the psychological reality of linguistic theories/
> frameworks like LFG and transformational grammar. Can anyone point me to some good
> discussions of this topic specifically with regard to LFG? I have "The Mental Representation of
> Grammatical Relations," but have been able to find very little else.
>
> In particular I am interested in finding complaints that have been lodged against LFG, especially if
> those complaints deal with the psychological component of language. I have some good reasons
> for supporting LFG, but would like to find out where its perceived weak spots are so I can present
> a well-rounded argument. My limited experience has been that anyone not specifically involved in
> LFG research pretty much just ignores it. Is that true (i.e., is it merely a social thing), or are there
> real complaints out there that steer people away from LFG? I suspect one reason I'm having a hard
> time finding negative arguments is that at least some of this type of arguing goes on in little bits
> and pieces spread throughout various journal articles, instead of in works dedicated to that
> purpose.
>
> Thanks in advance. If you are interested, you are welcome to e-mail me personally with
> comments. daeruin at benjaminrose.com
>
> --Ben Rose