Editor for this issue: <>
re:theoretical status of marginal utterances. I have seen no reply to Mark Seidenberg's enquiry about our attitude to ungrammatical utterances. The absence of any response to Mark would surely appear impolite. This must not be. Mark asked whether uncertainly grammatical utterances were welcome for the development of grammatical theory OR whether it was the marginality of such utterances that was signalled by the grammar. I hope that Mark Seidenberg's enquiry is reasonably adequately represented, in spite my brevity in reporting. I trust also that this draft reply will be helpful. Fortunately, the task of seeking marginality is done for us by some kinds of speakers. My theory of language behaviour includes the careful speaker/hearer who is constantly matching intuition to introspection in language use. It was these artefacts of my linguistic theory who belaboured me with their linguistic worries at meeting written utterances of the following form That is the linguist whom we think seems obscure. In turning to me they assumed that I had a model-theoretical means for explaining the structure. I was glad to have access to notions such as "clause", "government" and "case". Local to my model-theory is the concept of ECM. Out of this I have spun a structural account which should be featuring in one of our journals fairly shortly. The structure appears to be restricted to British English, and this confirms the well-known problem for the conventional linguistic theory: how to define a language by sub-dividing a language? Another problem is the status of this new structure within the synchrony of English, 1993? Yet, Saussure did not tie up the linguist synchronically, as we too often believe, without leaving our theory a push-down notion to handle language change. This case of syntactic change is visible in -Usage and Abusage-, which appeared in the US in 1942 (my copy is dated 1965), and in the best of the English newspapers at this end of the century. Saussure did hazard 100 years as the time needed for an /etat de langue. Where should that aspect of language use appear in our linguistic theory? Bill Bennett.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue