13.2381, Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *(...)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-2381. Thu Sep 19 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.2381, Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *(...)

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

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Anita Wang, EMU
	Lakshmi Narayanan, EMU		Steve Moran, EMU
	Sarah Murray, WSU		Marisa Ferrara, EMU

Software: Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>
          Zhenwei Chen, E. Michigan U. <zhenwei at linguistlist.org>

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: Renee Galvis <renee at linguistlist.org>

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

1)
Date:  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:02:40 -0300
From:  "Dan Everett" <dan_everett at sil.org>
Subject:  RE: 13.2369, Disc: New: Do We Need a Replacement for  *(...)?

2)
Date:  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:21:44 -0400
From:  "Christopher Bader" <cbader at Unveil.com>
Subject:  RE:      13.2369, Disc: New: Do We Need a Replacement for  *(...)?

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

Date:  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:02:40 -0300
From:  "Dan Everett" <dan_everett at sil.org>
Subject:  RE: 13.2369, Disc: New: Do We Need a Replacement for  *(...)?

Joost Kremers asks if we need a replacement for the *(...) notation. I
think we need a replacement for that entire way of thinking about
grammaticality. Some standard statistical significance/ANOVA
evaluations of native speaker reaction would put linguistics on a much
more sound methodological footing. The *, **, *(...), ?, ??, #,
notations we have grown up with are really just unscientific and
imprecise ways of talking about statistical generalizations across
speakers.

It is a shame that Wayne Cowart's book, _Experimental Syntax _, hasn't
received more attention and had more of an impact on syntactic
studies.  It points, I believe, to the future of linguistics - one
where we are no longer inventing our own notions of grammaticality to
fit the Procrustean bed of the paper we are currently writing. (Cowart
doesn't show that the symbols we have used in our syntactic
publications are wrong, necessarily, just very imprecise, often
obscuring deeper insights.)

-  Dan Everett


.........................
Dan Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
Department of Linguistics
Arts Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
M13 9PL
Manchester, UK
dan.everett at man.ac.uk


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

Date:  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:21:44 -0400
From:  "Christopher Bader" <cbader at Unveil.com>
Subject:  RE:      13.2369, Disc: New: Do We Need a Replacement for  *(...)?

Rather than add + , why not get rid of * ?

Linguists have acknowledged for years than the meaning of the star
notation and its variants, e.g. question mark(s), is implicitly
contrastive.  Optimality Theory expresses this directly in the harmony
operator >.

Therefore, instead of writing:

(1) I see *(the) car

(2) I see the (*a) car

Write:

(3) I see the car > I see car

(4) I see the car > I see the a car

Or simply:

(5) I see the car > I see car > I see the a car



Christopher Bader
Unveil Technologies, Inc.
400 Fifth Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-2381