🚀 go-pugleaf

hand@tam2000.tamu.edu (Michael Hand) writes:

>Mark Line <markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> > > Huh?  Center-embedding produces intuitively *unacceptable* sentences 
> > > pretty fast, as your example shows.  Its unacceptability is a datum.
> > > Nonetheless, it is as grammatical as all get-out.  What's been 
> > > "fabricated" here?
> >
> > How do you know it's "grammatical" if it's "unacceptable"? Unless of
> > course you create a grammar by fiat and then state, wholesale, that
> > sentences which fit that grammar are "grammatical" _by definition_,
> > whether they are "acceptable" or not. That, however, wouldn't buy you
> > anything, since you then have no way of empirically falsifying your
> > grammar.

>Slow down.  First, you've presented a false dilemma.  The mere fact
>that we distinguish acceptability from grammaticality doesn't mean 
>that the grammar is a matter of fiat.  The relation of acceptability 
>to grammaticality is itself a theoretical matter, as it ought to be.
>The issue is complicated, involving among other things the whole
>competence/performance distinction.

Fine. How do you distinguish empirically between competence and
performance? Unless, of course, you mean "Philosophy of Language" when
you say "Theory". 

>   Second, the mere fact that we distinguish acceptability from 
>grammaticality doesn't mean the grammar isn't empirically falsi-
>fiable.  If acceptability diverges from grammaticality and there
>is no explanation, there are gonna be problems.

You're avoiding my question. How do you judge grammaticality
empirically such that it _can_ diverge from acceptability? The only
ways I can see all succumb to circularity (we write a grammar to
generate only the grammatical sentences; we know a sentence is
grammatical (whether it is acceptable or not) because it is generated
by the grammar).

>In the center-
>embedding case, there's a natural and obvious explanation: it's
>hard to process the damn things, so despite their grammaticality,
>they're objectionable (in a wider sense than just *grammatically*
>objectionable).

Your so stating does not make it empirically true. How do you
demonstrate _empirically_ that center-embedded sentences are
grammatical? Please don't tell me it's because they're generated by
the grammar.

-- Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark P. Line                       Phone: +1-206-733-6040
Open Pathways                        Fax: +1-206-733-6040
P.O. Box F                         Email: markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Bellingham, WA 98227-0296
--------------------------------------------------------------------

hand@tam2000.tamu.edu (Michael Hand) writes:


>Slow down.  First, you've presented a false dilemma.  The mere fact
>that we distinguish acceptability from grammaticality doesn't mean 
>that the grammar is a matter of fiat.  The relation of acceptability 
>to grammaticality is itself a theoretical matter, as it ought to be.
>The issue is complicated, involving among other things the whole
>competence/performance distinction.

Ah, the sweet scent of snake oil!  There is nothing complicated
there, just a naked emperor whose nakedness is camouflaged in
near impenetrable jargon. Translated into one of the sciences,
here is the competence/performance distinction, minus the jargon:

-- All planets move in circular orbits.
-- No they don't! They move in elliptical orbits.
-- That is their performance. Their competence, however....


>   Second, the mere fact that we distinguish acceptability from 
>grammaticality doesn't mean the grammar isn't empirically falsi-
>fiable.  If acceptability diverges from grammaticality and there
>is no explanation, there are gonna be problems.  In the center-
>embedding case, there's a natural and obvious explanation: it's
>hard to process the damn things, so despite their grammaticality,
>they're objectionable (in a wider sense than just *grammatically*
>objectionable).

Preposterous. This is begging the question at its best. Why is
it so hard? Why isn't processing the 500+ irregular verbs of French
falling into 80+ categories as hard? Why isn't processing the
Navaho verbal system even harder? Simple: because this particular
piece of dogma says 
1.  those sentences are grammatical ("the rat that the cat that...")
2.  but they are unacceptable
3. because they are too hard to process
4. therefore they are, nonetheless, grammatical.

*My* own piece of dogma says:

1. In French, you formulate a question by reversing the word order:
   "Aujourd'hui de journal le lu avez vous?" (Have you read today's
   newspaper?)
2. but such sentences are unacceptable
3. because they are too hard to process
4. therefore they are, nonetheless, grammatical.

Charlatanry, nothing else.