UNSUBSCRIBE WORDGRAMMAR.
Rob Veltman (ex-ukc)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:21:51 +0200 Joseph Hilferty
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> First of all, let me say that I am very envious of both Jasper and
> Nik for being able to attend and participate in the construction
> grammar conferences (or workshop, as the case may be).
>
> Here are some rather jumbled comments on Jasp's paper.
>
> Jasper Holmes wrote:
> >
> > Figure 1: WG isa: DG, cg, CG
> >
> > a. WG isa Dependency Grammar (DG):-
> > words (and the relationships between them) are the only primitives of
> > linguistic structure
>
> In Fillmore & Kay's construction grammar (CG), this is (normally)
> expressed expressed by the [val { }] feature. What corresponds to
> word strings in WG, CG expresses as [lex -] (whereas single words
> are labeled [lex +]). The main difference between CG and WG is
> that WG really has nothing that corresponds to [max +] or [max -]
> (i.e., phrasal and nonphrasal constituent, respectively).
>
>
> > b. WG isa cognitive grammar (cg):-
> > (knowledge of) language is a subpart of the conceptual structure that
> > constitutes more general knowledge ('the mind')
> > [this means principally that we don't rule out, a priori, any
> > information from participating in linguistic structures, and cuts both
> > ways: not only do we see it as our responsibility to account for all the
> > properties of linguistic structures (cf. Borsley abstract), but, on the
> > plus side, we allow ourselves to use any appropriate information (eg
> > 'encyclopedic' semantic properties) to help explain linguistic
> > phenomena]
>
> Also: WG recognizes the usage-based nature of grammar (e.g., frequency
> effects), as well as prototype-based categories (e.g., default
> inheritance). Furthermore, WG organizes grammar in terms of interlocking
> networks (see Jasp's point 1.2).
>
>
> > c. WG isa Construction Grammar (CG)
> > all regularities of language are represented in a constructicon
> > (Jurafsky 1992), a network of more or less schematic lexical
> > representations (Fillmore 19??, ix: "an approach to language according
> > to which there is no sharp distinction between the lexicon and the
> > non-lexical parts of grammar.")
> > [this is a claim and means we have to find a plausible account, for any
> > pattern we find, in terms of an individual class of words or
> > dependencies (see (a)); (for advanced students:) the difference between
> > lexical structures based on word( classe)s and those based on
> > dependencies/y classes is not so great as you might think, it's really
> > just a matter of perspective: an object must isa Noun/some Nouns are
> > objects]
>
> As you say in your abstract, "the essential difference between lexical
> items and grammar rules is simply one of generality [...]." I would
> further add that the difference of generality is not categorical, but
> one of degree. This becomes clear when you consider conventional
> expressions.
>
>
> > a. Lexical properties of DOG: spelled /dog/, refers to dogs (of both
> > kinds), isa Noun, ...
>
> I know that this is nitpicking, but shouldn't it be "spelled <dog>."
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Joe
> __________________________________________________________
> Home page: http://lingua.fil.ub.es/~hilferty/homepage.html
|