LL-L "Language structure" 2004.07.24 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 24.JUL.2004 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Levity" [E]

> From: Henry Pijffers <henry.pijffers at saxnot.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Levity" 2004.07.23 (09) [E]
>
> R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  >
> >  Language itself is pretty darn logical and regular.  It tend
> > to be our (usually set-in-the-way) methods of rendering language
> graphically
> > that leave much to be desired in the logics and regularity departments.
> >
> I second that. I for one think it's possible to, sort of, mathematically
> describe most, if not all, natural languages. I even think it's possible
> to procedure correct computer translations of most or all written texts,
> if one ever finds out how to correctly, mathematically, logically
> describe a language.

If you listen to people speaking in a native, unschooled language (for
example, s Scots speaker who was taught in English speaking their native
Scots), you'll discover that language is far from regular. I would say that
it's a bit of a circular argument to claim that languages are regular.
Regularised language may be prescribed in schools, they might be written
down in a regularised fashion in books, but that doesn't tell us much about
what languages are really like "in the wild".

Some examples of irregularities in spoken languages are:

    o    cutoff point - a speaker sometimes stops speaking mid-sentence
because they feel the listener has grasped their meaning;

    o    grammatical variation - "untrained" grammar is often tolerant of
variation in inflections, word order &c that would be considered mistakes in
regularised forms of the languages;

    o    semantic reversal - a person often uses vocabulary or grammar that
implies the opposite of what he really means.

    o    noises with semantic intent - "Aha! Eh... weeeeell oooooooh!
d'oh..."

An example of semantic reversal resulting from syntax is in the song "Drink
to me only":

"If I could of Jove's nectar sup,
"I would not change for thine."

Of course, he means "I _would_ change for thine" (unless he wants a
clout!) - but most people get the intended meaning and don't even notice
what was actually said. I often notice this sort of thing in speech in
English, including my own speech - which makes me wonder just how much of it
goes on that I don't notice!

Semantic reversal can be simply a matter of choice of vocabulary, though,
for example, in Scots:

"lairn" might mean "teach" or "learn".
"listen" might mean "listen" or "make a sound";
"herken" might mean "listen carefully" or "whisper";
"dout" might mean "doubt" or "believe";

and so on.

Similarly, you hear people saying in English "You've got your trousers
hanging out" for "You've got your shirt hanging out" &c.

All this reflects the fact that language doesn't work in isolation - there's
always a considerable layer of interpretation involved. This is perhaps just
as true, though in a different way, of written language. Some important
semantic elements such as emphasis, gesture, body language and intonation
are missing from written languages and often the writer depends on schooling
or experience in somehow suggesting these within the confines of linear
text. But it's a well-known principle in creative writing that different
readers will put a different interpretation on your words and there comes a
point where you can't fight this.

The idea of expressing a language mathematically - well OK, as long as your
mathematics is tolerant of irregularities in the structure. But translating
mathematically as a result of a mathematical description of the written
language? No, because language is only part of what goes into making the
meaning of a communication.

All this is even before we get into the importance of metaphor in spoken
language...!

I often think that the current state of descriptive linguistics is too
simplistic, expressing what are actually continuous phenomena as if they
were discrete. For example, linguists seem to use the IPA rather blindly and
will discuss voicing and devoicing but seem little interested in _how much_
voicing is involved. Similarly in grammar, rules such as "have" versus "has"
are prescribed (either one or the other is right in each case) without any
attempt to record the distribution of usage when speakers, often even the
same speaker, vary between "has" and "have" in the same grammatical context.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================