15.3303, Disc: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-15-3303. Thu Nov 25 2004. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 15.3303, Disc: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP

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

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org)
        Sheila Collberg, U of Arizona
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona

Homepage: 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: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.


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

1)
Date: 25-Nov-2004
From: Ahmad Reza Lotfi < ahmadreza_lotfi at hotmail.com >
Subject: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP



-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:04:06
From: Ahmad Reza Lotfi < ahmadreza_lotfi at hotmail.com >
Subject: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP


For previous messages in this discussion, see
  Linguist 15.3231 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3231.html)
  Linguist 15.3262 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3262.html)
  Linguist 15.3263 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3263.html)
  Linguist 15.3272 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3272.html)
  Linguist 15.3277 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3277.html)


Dear Linguists,

On  21-Nov-2004  Pius ten Hacken < P.Ten-Hacken at swansea.ac.uk > wrote:

>
>Two obvious remarks any Chomskyan linguist would make in this respect are:
>
>1. Phrase structure rules and transformations are meant to describe
>the grammatical competence of a speaker, not the processes of
>production or interpretation of linguistic performance.
>

What is less obvious, however, is whether (Dan Slobin's) psycholinguistic
experimentations with such rules, which established the (true?) belief that
these rules are at best those of linguistic competence rather than those of
real-time speakers' performance/mental processes are still valid given the
superiority of parallel processing models to serial ones for a good number
of mental activities including visual ones, and most probably also for
those of mental grammar:

All a reaction-time experiment shows is that the sentence S1 allegedly
involving more transformations than S2, e.g. passives vs. their active
counterparts, does not get more time to process. This does not necessarily
mean that they've got no pyschological reality. There's still a chance that
(some) T-rules apply in parallel irrespective of the superficial feeding
relationships  among them, hence not different in computation time but
perhaps different in the amount of resources employed. I think
generativists of the time withdrew too hurriedly when they confined their
rules to mere competence.

Regards,


Ahmad R. Lotfi, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of linguistics,
Chair of English dept.
Graduate School
Azad University at Khorasgan (IRAN)

http://www.geocities.com/arlotfi/lotfipage.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ahmadrlotfi/index.html



Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Syntax





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-3303