Bruce,

There have been attempts to add non-syntactic conditions to
transformations, like, for example, the variable rules that Labov
proposed back in the early '70s and that dialectologists have
worked with.  However, quantifying the influence of the variables
has always resisted attempts to do this in a principled way.  The
fact is, GG in its various forms really isn't about what people
prefer or ought to do.  It's supposed to be about native speaker
competence, that is, the syntactic knowledge that somehow
underlies their linguistic behavior.  I've felt very uncomfortable
with Chomsky's notion of linguistic competence.  I think it's a
construct he had to devise to make his theory work.  There's no
good experimental evidence for a distinction between competence
and performance.

You're right again when you note that GG doesn't go beyond
syntax.  It's all about syntax.  It's not a theory of meaning, of
real-world linguistic behavior, or of discourse pragmatics.  It's
a theory of syntax.  Chomsky has maintained that from the first.

I'd also agree that kids who take to mathematical formalism would
also take to syntactic analysis.  They go together nicely, and I
think such kids should be given some exposure to it.

Herb

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/01 02:33PM >>>
Herb,

I guess that problem with embedded clauses (sentences) is why the
transformational component was added.  (Maybe complexity ought to
be a condition on their applicability.)  Then when there are
problems with things like the semantics and the cultural context
we caould add these other elements, as soon as we can figure out
how to model them mathematically.  I understand (that what) the
claim is is that GT-grammar doesn't really go beyond "syntax" in
the strictest sense of the word.  Its infinite capacity is
certainly not exploited in the practical and all too real world.
Maybe such caveats could be given safely.  Sort of like saying
we'll teach you Arithmetic, but you can't solve some problems with
it that you will be able to work out using Algebra and Calculus.

I agree that it is probably simpler in the lower grades to give
sentence and phrase patterns that students can learn to recognize
in sentences.  We naturally introduce these by example and not
with rules that describe them (generatively), which would possibly
come later.  Yet, it seems that students who have had success in
their mathematical studies might profit from using one of those
languages as appropriate.  Then, I suppose, modeling would have to
be added to the curriculum somewhere.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/01 08:05AM >>>
Bruce,

You've got it right.  A generative grammar defines formally the
infinite set of sentences that is a language, in the same sense
that the formula n=2m-1 defines the infinite set of odd
integers.
There are a number of important and troublesome assumptions
built
into the decision to use a generative definition.  The first and
largest is the notion that a language is a set of sentences, a
statement that excludes all behavior and culture from the domain
of linguistics.  A lot of us would reject this notion for a
variety of reasons and to a variety of extents.  A second is
that
the set of sentences is infinite.  This assumption is
necessarily
true from a mathematical perspective, but it imposes the formal
possibility of sentences in the set that cannot in fact occur in
normal language usage, including some, but not all,
center-embedded sentences like "The policeman the boy the dog
bit
called came.  That said, generative grammar has contributed
important insights to our knowledge of what language is and how
it
works.  It is, however, a highly formal, rigorous, and abstract
side of the study of grammar that shouldn't be inflicted on the
innocent and unsuspecting.  You have to want to do linguistics
that way, and if you do, you'll likely find much in it that is
satisfying and rewarding.

Herb Stahlke

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/