LINGUIST List 7.372

Sat Mar 9 1996

Qs: Modality, Chinese Texts, Phonological Theory

Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselinemunix.emich.edu>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

Directory

  1. Ken Hughes, Modality, intentionality, and infinitival TO
  2. Paul Woods, Segmentation of Chinese texts by computer
  3. John Goldsmith, gldsmthu.washington.edu

Message 1: Modality, intentionality, and infinitival TO

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 03:01:05 PST
From: Ken Hughes <hughesunixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Modality, intentionality, and infinitival TO

I'm finishing up a thesis that examines a phenomenology of verbal
inflection and modality. I'm looking at a narrow interpretation of
'syntactic intentionality' that I think is evident in infinitival TO
and zero morphs in English and German modal auxiliaries.

When I say intentionality, I mean intentionality in an old-fashioned
Husserlian sense as intentionality-as-directedness (not
intentionality- as-intensionality) under constrained grammatical views
observed in the patterning of infinitival TO (perhaps especially so
when it is 'semantically empty'), in periphrastic modal forms, and in
related structures such as causatives, verbs of perception, and the
like.

Whatever syntactic category infinitival TO belongs to (be it INFLo,
some other inflectional head, or some unique category of its own) I
want to assert that its referent seems to be what does the heavy
lifting in the generation of sentential modality. This doesn't seem
too odd to assert but one consequence of this is that a modal verb
(excepting OUGHT) ends up looking something like:

 M --> [ TNS V [ INFLo? ]] (with two INFL nodes?).

This is rather ugly, but it seems clear that something special needs
to be said about infinitival TO and modal AUX.

I'm interested in any comments, related mysteries, or refutations.
(Note that this grammar uses only a reduced form of Chomsky 1980.)
I'll summarize these, along with previous data collection, in April.

Thanks for your attentions,

 Ken Hughes hughesunixg.ubc.ca Science Education, UBC
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Segmentation of Chinese texts by computer

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 12:19:20 GMT
From: Paul Woods <P.Woodsdcs.shef.ac.uk>
Subject: Segmentation of Chinese texts by computer

Hello, I am looking at developing efficient, simple, and robust
computer techniques of segmenting Chinese texts for the purposes of
information extraction.If you have any suggestions for papers,
books,or people that I might be able to contact, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks,
Paul Woods.
Uni of Sheffield
UK.

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~paulw
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: gldsmthu.washington.edu

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:23:36 PST
From: John Goldsmith <gldsmthu.washington.edu>
Subject: gldsmthu.washington.edu
I am constructing a book of readings in phonological theory in the
generative era, and I'd be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions
along these lines, especially from people who teach phonology and who
have favorite articles (or books) which they especially like for their
students to reach but which are difficult or impossible for the
students to get hold of.

Send your nominations to
John Goldsmith
gldsmthsapir.uchicago.edu

Thanks.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue