Discussion Details
| Title: | Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP |
| Submitter: | Peter T. Daniels |
| Description: | For previous messages in this discussion, see
Linguist 15.3231 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3231.html) Linguist 15.3262 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3262.html) Linguist 15.3263 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3263.html) Linguist 15.3272 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3272.html) Linguist 15.3277 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3277.html) Linguist 15.3303 (http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3303.html) LINGUIST List wrote: On 21-Nov-2004 Pius ten Hacken < P.Ten-Hacken@swansea.ac.uk wrote: Two obvious remarks any Chomskyan linguist would make in this respect are: 1. Phrase structure rules and transformations are meant to describe the grammatical competence of a speaker, not the processes of production or interpretation of linguistic performance. What is less obvious, however, is whether (Dan Slobin's) psycholinguistic experimentations with such rules, which established the (true?) belief that these rules are at best those of linguistic competence rather than those of real-time speakers' performance/mental processes are still valid given the superiority of parallel processing models to serial ones for a good number of mental activities including visual ones, and most probably also for those of mental grammar: But see Jackendoff's recent Foundations of Language for reasons why parallel processing isn't a good model for language. -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
| Date Posted: | 26-Nov-2004 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
Linguistic Theories
Syntax |
| LL Issue: | 15.3309 |
| Posted: | 26-Nov-2004 |
