---

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

---

Directory

        1.    Peter T. Daniels, Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP

---

Message 1: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP

Date: 26-Nov-2004
From: Peter T. Daniels <worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Deep Structure/Initial PP


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-Hackenswansea.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                       grammatimatt.net 
 
 
 Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Syntax
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

---