Editor for this issue: Renee Galvis <renee
linguistlist.org>
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.everettMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueman.ac.uk
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 02451Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue