And:
>And WG does use FL methods to model grammar! Or so I had thought. All WG
>adds is extra contextual info that most formal models don't bother with.
>(Tho I can well imagine HPSG bothering with it, if it doesn't already.)
>WG doesn't claim to be able to use its methods to adequately model bikes,
>ants or grins, but it does claim to be able to adequately model grammatical
>categories. No?
## Yes indeed. WG does use formal methods to model grammars. The only point
of disagreement between us, I think, is about modularity. I think the same
formal methods that I use for modelling grammars can model the whole of
'propositional' knowledge - i.e. everything that's digital, rather than the
analog bits that hold visual, auditor, tactile etc. images. So I don't see
the need to distinguish a 'formal grammar' module from a 'usage' module,
which I think is the main point of what you're suggesting. Otherwise I
think I agree with everything you say.
That point of general agreement seems very appropriate to the season. Happy
Hols, everyone!!
Dick
Richard (= Dick) Hudson
Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
|