University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Language and context: toward a model of psycholinguistic competence

(USC Thesis Other)

Language and context: toward a model of psycholinguistic competence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograrrfi and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department) giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfiims
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
74-26,027
FLYNN, T errence M ichael, 1946-
LA N G U A G E A N D CONTEXT: T O W A R D A M O D E L OF
PSYCHOLINGUISTIC COM PETENCE.
U n iv e rsity o f Southern C a lif o r n ia , P h .D ., 1974
Language and L ite r a tu r e , lin g u i s t i c s
I University Microfilms, A X ERO X C om pany. Ann Arbor, M ichigan j
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT: TOWARD A MODEL
OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC COM PETENCE
[ by
T e rre n c e M ichael Flynn
A D issertatio n P re se n te d to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a rtia l F u lfillm en t of the
R eq u irem en ts fo r the D egree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(L inguistics)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
T his dissertation, written by
...........
under the direction of h.X&.. Dissertation C om
m ittee, and approved by all its m em bers, has
been presented to and accepted by T he G raduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirem ents of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
('Trt
Date.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
--
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
LIST O F IL L U S T R A T IO N S .............................................................................. iv
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ........................................................................................ v
IN T R O D U C T IO N ..................................................................................................... 1
C h a p te r
I. B L O O M F IE L D AND CHOMSKY: ON T H E
SEM A N T IC S O F NA TU RA L L A N G U A G E ............................... 8
In tro d u c tio n ............................................. .... .................................. 8
B l o o m f i e ld ........................................................................................ 9
C h o m s k y ........................................................................................... 15
T he C e n tra lity of S y n t a x ................................................... 15
S ta n d a rd T h e o ry D eep S t r u c t u r e .................................. 31
R e v is e d S ta n d ard T h e o ry D eep S t r u c t u r e .............. 43
C o n t e x t ........................................................................................ 46
N o t e s ..................................................................................................... 54
n . R E Q U E S T S AND STA TEM EN TS:
A SEM A N TIC C O N ST R A IN T .......................................................... 56
I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................................................... 56
T e s t Q u e s t i o n s .............................................................................. 56
P r o p e r R e q u e s ts fo r I n f o r m a t i o n ...................................... 67
The C o n s t r a i n t .............................................................................. 74
S u m m a r y ........................................................................................... 83
N o te s .................................................................................................. 85
in. A P P L Y IN G TH E C O N S T R A IN T........................................ 87
I n t r o d u c t i o n ..................................................................................... 87
SH A L L and W IL L .......................................................................... 89
O th e r M o d a l .................................................................................... 103
N o t e s ..................................................................................................... 107
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
C hapter
IV. THE PHYL.OGENY OF G R A M M A R ........................................ 108
I n tr o d u c tio n .............................................................................. 108
F o rm and Function in G r a m m a r ....................................... 109
C o n c lu s io n ................................................................................. 119
N o te s............................................................................................. 122
R E FE R E N C E S ................................................................................................... 124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
L IS T O F IL L U S T R A T IO N S
F ig u re
1. M a jo r S tru c tu ra l P r o p e r t ie s of a S ta n d ard
T h e o ry G r é im m a r..................................................
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The people who d e serv e m y gratitude fo r helping m e b rin g th is
work to com pletion a re too num erous to m ention individually. They
include my fo rm e r te a c h e rs in lin g u istics at the U n iv ersity of W iscon
sin, the U n iv ersity of Southern C alifo rn ia, and the U n iv ersity of C a li
fo rn ia at Santa C ru z. Am ong th ese , perhaps a special debt is owed to
M u rray F o w ler of the U n iv ersity of W isconsin, fo r it was he who f ir s t
awakened me to the p le a s u re s of lin g u istics.
My co m m ittee m em b e rs provided me with m any helpful su g
gestions, fo r which I thank them . B ruce Downing in p a rtic u la r donated
m uch of his valuable tim e and in term in ab le patience to seein g m e
through. The deb t I owe him is larg e indeed, both for h is w ork r e g a r d
ing th is d iss e rta tio n and h is fine teaching.
I would lik e to give sp ecial thanks to those n onlinguists who
w ere so helpful. M uch g ratitu d e is due to my in fo rm an ts, a ll of whom
w ere splendidly w illing guinea pigs; to m y very special frie n d and
guardian of m y san ity , D ennis Rodm an; to Tom Cofer; to G a rry and
Beth P u ffer, who, in th e ir own way, kept me aw are of the lig h t at the
end of the tunnel; and to m y c a ts , whose lack of a p p reciatio n of m y
anxieties len t a m uch needed com ic re lie f to the w riting of th is w ork.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
F inally, I would lik e to thank m y beautiful wife Ruth. H er
patience and support have kep t the sm ile on m y face.
Of c o u rse , I absolve a ll th ese people of any resp o n sib ility for
the shortcom ings of th is w ork.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IN TR O D U CTIO N
M y m a in c o n c e r n in th is w o rk is to m a k e so m e c o n trib u tio n
to w a rd a d e s c r ip tio n of th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l g ré im m a r. T he m a jo r
ta r g e t of C h a p te r I is th e n o tio n of c o m p e te n c e .. I t is m y c o n te n tio n
th a t th e a s s u m p tio n s w h ich d efin e c o m p e te n c e do so in su c h a lim itin g
fa s h io n th a t lin g u is ts who a c c e p t th e s e a s s u m p tio n s c a n n o t p o s s ib ly
c o n s tr u c t a w o rk a b le m o d e l of th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l g r a m m a r .
In o r d e r to c r itic iz e th e n o tio n of c o m p e te n c e , it w ill be n e c e s
s a r y to ta k e a lo o k a t so m e of i ts f o rm a l c h a r a c te r i s t ic s . S ince g e n
e r a tiv e g r a m m a r s a r e e x p lic itly a tte m p ts to r e p r e s e n t c o m p e te n c e ,
th e f o rm a l p r o p e r tie s of g r a m m a r w ill be f o rm a l p r o p e r tie s of
c o m p e te n c e .
M o st of th e f i r s t c h a p te r is d e v o te d to a re v ie w an d c r i t ic i s m
of th e v iew s of g r a m m a r e s p o u se d by N oam C h o m sk y . B e fo re
C h o m sk y , th e t h e o r e tic a l p r e c e p ts w hich s e t th e b o u n d a rie s of lin g u is
tic in q u iry w e r e , in th e U n ited S ta te s a t l e a s t , th o se f o rm u la te d by
L e o n a rd B lo o m fie ld . The C hom skiem R e v o lu tio n in lin g u is tic s re p la c e d
th o se p r e c e p ts w ith o th e r s w h ich h a d th e e ffe c t of in c r e a s in g th e n u m
b e r of ty p e s of d a ta r e le v a n t in th e c o n s tr u c tio n of g r a m m a r s . I w ill
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n p ro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
2
p re se n t evidence in subsequent c h a p te rs intended to show that th is
b roadening of the dom ain of lin g u istics h as not y et gone fa r enough to
allow us to propose a m odel of the psychologically re a l g ram m ar.
I w ill f ir s t review and c ritic iz e the view s of m eaning held by
L eonard B loom field, since th ese view s w ere an influential h isto ric a l
antecedent to C hom sky's w ork. Then I w ill d isc u s s , in some detail,
a num ber of c h a ra c te ristic s of C hom sky's S tandard Theory and attem pt
to show th at the R evised Standard T heory h as reta in e d som e c ru c ia l
d efects of the Standard Theory.
I would like to m ake c le a r a t th is tim e th at the reaso n fo r my
extensive c ritic ism of Chom sky is th at he is p erh ap s the only lin g u ist
whose explications of g ram m ar/co m p e te n c e have been stated with su f
fic ien t c la rity and p rec isio n to m ake them capable of c ritic ism . ^
In the c ritic a l p a rts of th is study, I w ill m ake no explicit m en
tio n of o th er com peting lin g u istic th e o rie s , such as G enerative Sem an
tic s o r the w ork of B ever et al. in w hat m ight be called P ercep tu al
G ra m m a r, even though I w ill at tim e s be suggesting rev isio n s in the
th eo ry of g ram m ar th at have a lre a d y been m ade in one o r the oth er of
th ese th eo ries (e.g . , abandoning s y n ta x -c en trality in favor of sem an
tic a lly b ased g ram m ar, som ething a lre a d y esp o u sed by g enerative
se m a n tic ists). I will also p re se n t the r e s u lts of m y r e s e a rc h in a
fo rm a t m uch like th at used by som e g en erativ e s e m a n tic ists, and I will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
h a v e o c c a s io n to r e f e r to B e v e r. T h u s, i t w ould be re a s o n a b le to
w o n d e r w h at r e la tio n s h ip m y w o rk b e a r s to th e s e o th e r th e o r ie s .
M uch of w hat I w ill h av e to sa y c a n be r e la te d q u ite e a s ily to
th e w o rk of g e n e ra tiv e s e m a n tic is ts , an d I hope m y d e b t to th e m w ill
be c le a r . H o w e v e r, it is n o t c le a r to m e th a t m y w o rk s p e c ific a lly
su p p o rts G e n e ra tiv e S e m a n tic s. W hile m y r e s e a r c h w as done in an
a r e a a lr e a d y p a rtia lly tre a te d by a n u m b e r of p r a c titio n e r s of th a t
t h e o r y , I b e lie v e th e c o n c lu sio n s I d ra w d iffe r s o m e w h at f ro m t h e i r s .
I do n o t w ish to a s s o c ia te th e th e o ry of G e n e ra tiv e S e m a n tic s w ith c o n
c lu s io n s w h ich , fo r a ll I know , m a y n o t be s h a re d by a sin g le g e n e r a
tiv e s e m a n tic is t. T h e re i s , m o re o v e r, th e f a c t th a t G e n e ra tiv e
S e m a n tic s is a r e la tiv e ly n ew and ra p id ly cha.nging th e o r y w h ich a p p e a r s
to h a v e l e s s in c o m m o n w ith th e S ta n d a rd T h e o ry th a n d o e s th e R e v is e d
S ta n d a rd T h e o ry . T h u s, th e r e is a s y e t n o th in g w h ich co u ld be r e
g a rd e d a s a d e fin itiv e s ta te m e n t of th e e s s e n c e of G e n e ra tiv e S e m a n tic s
an d a g re e d u p o n by la r g e n u m b e rs of lin g u is ts .
T h is l a t t e r c o m m e n t a p p lie s , m u ta tis m u ta n d is , to P e r c e p tu a l
G r a m m a r a s w e ll. B ut in th is c a s e , th e d iffic u ltie s a r e so m e w h at
g r e a t e r , s in c e P e rce p tu c il G ra m m a r is e v e n n e w e r an d m o re d is ta n tly
r e la te d to th e e s ta b lis h e d S ta n d ard T h e o ry . T h e re is a t p r e s e n t an
e x tr e m e ly lim ite d am o u n t of w o rk a v a ila b le in th is a r e a , and no c le a r
s ta te m e n t of th e r e la tio n s h ip , if an y , b e tw e e n th is th e o r y and p re v io u s
th e o r ie s .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
4
C hapter II is concerned p rim a rily with the statem en t of a
sem antic c o n stra in t which affects the in te rp re ta tio n of c e rta in s ta te
m en ts and req u e sts fo r info rm atio n . The c ru c ia l fac t about the con
s tra in t is th at it links the c o rr e c t sem antic in te rp re ta tio n of c e rta in
sen ten ces with in fo rm atio n about d isco u rse p a rticip a n ts. It is shown
th at the m eans n e c e s s a ry to state the c o n stra in t also p rovide, in p a rt,
fo r a c h a ra c te riz a tio n of the notions a p p ro p riate resp o n se and appro -
p ria te challenge.
In C hapter III the c o n stra in t is applied to sen ten ces with highest
su rface p red ic a te s of two types: (1) m odals and (2) p red ic a te s which
re p re s e n t psychological sta te s. The R evised Standard T heory an aly sis
of a p a rtic u la r problem involving m odals is d isc u sse d and a new analy
sis p roposed, with the re s u lt th at the notion of sem an tic in te rp re tiv e
ru le em ployed in th at th eo ry is called into se rio u s question.
F in ally , C hapter IV p rese n ts som e sp eculations about the gen
e ra l fo rm of the psychologically re a l g ram m ar. The content of th ese
speculations is d eterm in ed , on the one hand, by av ailab le em p iric a l
lin g u istic evidence (esp ecially evidence on first-la n g u a g e acquisition)
and, on the o th er, by arg u m en ts about the function(s) of hum an la n
guage. It is claim ed th at the phylogeny of hum an language has been
d eterm in ed in p a rt by p re s s u re s a risin g fro m the biological advantages
attendant upon im p ro v em en ts in the com m unicative function.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
In th is stu d y I h ope to e s ta b lis h a n u m b e r of p o in ts .
1. T he p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l g r a m m a r is a g r a m m a r w h ich
im u s t c o n ta in , a s a p a r t, a th e o ry of c o m p e te n c e th a t f its c e r ta in fa c ts
h e re to fo r e r e g a r d e d a s f e a tu re s of p e rf o r m a n c e . T h a t i s , th e s im p le s t
m o d e l of a s p e a k e r 's know ledge of h is lan g u a g e is a m o d e l w h ich w ill
allo w th e s p e a k e r to u s e th e g e n e ra liz a tio n s r e p r e s e n te d in o u r c h a r a c
t e r iz a tio n o f th a t k n o w led g e.
2. C h o m s k ia n t h e o r ie s of c o m p e te n c e a r e n ot a m e n a b le to
su c h a f it, f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t , th e c e n tr a lity of sy n ta x w ill
be show n to im p ly an a r e a of in v e s tig a tio n w h ic h e s s e n tia lly d u p lic a te s
a v a s t a m o u n t of in fo rm a tio n th a t w ould h a v e to be c o n ta in e d in an a d e
q u a te t r e a tm e n t of m e a n in g . S econd, th e e v id e n c e w h ich h a s b e e n r e
g a rd e d a s s u p p o rt f o r th e n o tio n of d e e p s tr u c tu r e w ill be c ritic iz e d .
I t w ill be a rg u e d th a t th e e m p ir ic a l e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g th e re la tio n s h ip
b e tw e e n d e e p s tr u c tu r e s an d m e a n in g s s u p p o rts o n ly a le v e l of g r a m
m a r in w h ic h m e a n in g s a r e r e p r e s e n te d . T he s y n ta c tic e v id e n c e fo r
d e e p s tr u c tu r e w ill be show n to be e m p ir ic a lly in a d e q u a te . T h ird , the
p r a c tic e of s p e c ify in g in g r a m m a r only su c h in fo rm a tio n a s s p e a k e r s
h a v e a b o u t s e n te n c e s o u t of c o n te x t w ill be c r i t ic i z e d on th e g ro u n d s
I th a t it p r e c lu d e s a d e q u ate tr e a tm e n t of c e r t a in g r a m m a tic a l and
s e m a n tic p h e n o m e n a .
3. T h e re e x is t a n u m b e r of lin g u is tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s a b o u t
,w hat h a s p r e v io u s ly b e e n re g a r d e d a s p r a g m a tic in fo rm a tio n , and
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
6
h e n c e , b ey o n d th e b o u n d a rie s of c o m p e te n c e . T h e s e g e n e ra liz a tio n s
h av e e m p ir ic a l su p p o rt a s s tro n g a s th a t a tte n d in g g e n e ra liz a tio n s of
th e ty p e c u r r e n tly in c lu d e d in t h e o r ie s of c o m p e te n c e .
4. T h e c o m p le te s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n o f s e n te n c e s is o fte n
so d r a s tic a lly u n d e rd e te rm in e d by s u rfa c e p h e n o m e n a th a t th e r e i s no
n o n -a d hoc w ay f o r th e th e o r ie s u n d e r c o n s id e r a tio n to b u ild in to u n d e r
ly in g s tr u c tu r e s en o u g h in fo rm a tio n to sp e c ify a d e q u a te ly th e i n t e r p r e
ta tio n s th e s e n te n c e s a c tu a lly r e c e iv e in n o rm a l d is c o u r s e .
5. T h e s y s te m of kn o w led g e p o s s e s s e d by r e a l s p e a k e r s w h ich
e n a b le s th e m to p ro d u c e an d i n te r p r e t s e n te n c e s of n a tu r a l lan g u a g e
in c lu d e s g e n e ra liz a tio n s r e la tin g s e n te n c e s to d is c o u r s e p a rtic ip a n ts
and c o n te x t.
6. G iv en th a t m o d e rn g r a m m a r s p ro v id e th a t m o s t s e n te n c e s
of an y n a tu r a l la n g u a g e a r e am b ig u o u s to so m e d e g re e , th e p s y c h o lo g i
c a lly r e a l g r a m m a r m u s t p o s s e s s so m e p r in c ip le s of d isa m b ig u a tio n .
S ince r e a l s p e a k e r s r a r e ly fin d a c tu a l u tte r a n c e s a m b ig u o u s , th e y m u s t
p o s s e s s so m e m e a n s of s e le c tin g th e a p p ro p r ia te s e m a n tic i n te r p r e t a
tio n fro m th e s e t o f a c c e p ta b le s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n s a tte n d in g a m
b ig u o u s s e n te n c e s . A r e p r e s e n ta tio n of so m e of th e s e p r in c ip le s is
p ro v id e d , w ith a r e s u ltin g s im p lific a tio n of th e le x ic o n .
B e fo re p ro c e e d in g , I w ould lik e to p o in t o u t th a t, e s p e c ia lly
w ith r e g a r d to m y c r i t ic i s m s of C h o m sk ia n lin g u is tic s , m y p o in ts a r e .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
7
f o r th e m o s t p a r t, n o t o r ig in a l. I th in k th a t th e y do , h o w e v e r, d iffe r
in d e ta il fro m s im ila r c r i t ic i s m s of w h ich I a m a w a re .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
C H A P T E R I
B L O O M F IE L D AND CHOMSKY:
ON TH E SEM A N TICS O F N A TU R A L LANG UAG E
In tro d u c tio n
A m o n g th e c e n tr a l is s u e s in m o d e rn lin g u is tic s a r e s e v e r a l
q u e s tio n s c o n c e rn in g m e a n in g . W hat is i t ? Is i t p r o p e r ly w ith in th e
d o m ain o f l in g u is tic s ? If it i s , how is it to be r e p r e s e n te d ? If it is n o t,
how c a n it be e x c lu d e d , c o n s id e rin g th a t an e s s e n t ia l p r o p e r ty of la n
g u a g e , if n o t i ts m o s t e s s e n tia l p r o p e r ty , is i ts fu n c tio n in t r a n s m i t
tin g in fo r m a tio n ?
In th e e a r l y p a r t of th is c e n tu ry A m e ric a n lin g u is tic s , u n d e r
th e ack n o w led g e d le a d e r s h ip of L e o n a rd B lo o m fie ld , p ro v id e d a n s w e rs
to th e s e q u e s tio n s w h ich w e re la r g e ly o v e rtu r n e d by th e C h o m sk ia n
re v o lu tio n . In th is c h a p te r I w ould lik e to re v ie w c r i t ic a ll y B lo o m
f ie ld 's a p p ro a c h to m e a n in g and c o m p a re it w ith th e v iew C h o m sk y
p o p u la riz e d in th e m id - s ix tie s . B oth v iew s h a v e e x c lu d e d fro m g r a m
m a r c e r ta in ty p e s of in fo rm a tio n th a t s e n te n c e s of n a tu r a l la n g u a g e s
c a n be show n to co n v e y . T h is e x c lu s io n , an ill-fo u n d e d o n e , I hope to
d e m o n s tra te , h a s p ro fo u n d c o n s e q u e n c e s fo r th e n o tio n of g r a m m a r .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
9
If lin g u ists w ish to c h a ra c te riz e the psychologically r e a l g ram m ar, a
new p e rsp e c tiv e on g ram m ar is demanded by av ailab le e m p iric a l data.
Bloomfield
L eo n ard B loom field, a disciple of W atsonian b eh av io rism ,
reg ard ed h is co m m itm en t to behaviorism as a co m m itm en t to pure
scien ce, and he reg a rd e d lin g u istics a s, ideally if not in p ra c tic e , a
science. An avowed m ech an ist, he castig ated the so -c a lle d m en ta lists
for accepting unobservable p ro p ertie s as valid com ponents of th eir
d e scrip tio n s of language. This he reg ard ed as fundam entally non-
scien tific.
H is abiding co n cern th at the study of language be as scientific
as p o ssib le, th at it d eal, when it could, only with o b se rv a b les, led
him to define m eaning in such a way th at it was im p o ssib le in p rinciple
to do a com plete sem an tics of a n atu ra l language. He w rote
We distin g u ish ed th re e su ccessiv e events in an act of speech: A,
the s p e a k e r's situation; B, h is u tteran ce of sp eech-sound and its
im pingem ent on the h e a r e r 's e a r-d ru m s: and C, the h e a re r 's
resp o n se . . . . In p rin c ip le , the student of language is concerned
only with the actu al speech (B); the study of s p e a k e rs ' situ atio n s
and h e a r e r s ' resp o n se s (A and C) is equivalent to the sum to tal
of hum an knowledge. If we had an accu rate knowledge of ev ery
s p e a k e r's situation and of ev ery h e a re r 's re s p o n s e --a n d th is
would m ake us little sh o rt of om n iscien t--w e could sim ply r e g is
te r th ese two fac ts as the m eaning (A-C) of any given speech u tte r
ance (B), and neatly se p ara te our study fro m a ll o th er dom ains of
knowledge. (B loom field, 1933, p. 7^:).^
We have defined the m eaning of a linguistic fo rm as the situation
in which the sp eak er u tte rs it and the resp o n se which it c a lls
fo rth in the h e a re r. (LB, p. 139)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
If m eaning is defined as a to tal s itu a tio n -an d -resp o n se , the infinite
v a ria b ility of both excludes the p o ssib ility of an adequate d escrip tio n
of m eaning, in lin g u istics and in any o th er discip lin e as w ell. As the
f ir s t quotation show s, B loom field viewed lin g u istics as fundam entally
concerned with the m edium by which m eanings w ere conveyed, ra th e r
than the m eanings th em selv es.
This is not m eant to im ply e ith e r th at he failed to a p p reciate
: the im p o rtan ce of m eaning o r th at he ignored it in any way. On the
j im portance of m eaning, he w rote:
The im p o rtan t thing about language is its se rv ic e in connecting the
s p e a k e r's stim u lu s (A) with the h e a r e r 's resp o n se (C). (LB,
p. 128)
T hus, it a p p ears fa ir to say th at B loom field saw the conveying of m ea n
ing as a function of language, but h is p rim e co n cern was not function,
but ra th e r fo rm .
M eaning is non eth eless c ru c ia l to the lin g u ist. F o r Bloom field,
a statem en t of the taxonom ic phonem ic stru c tu re of a language was an
indispensable p a rt of the d e scrip tio n of that language. In d iscu ssin g
the investig atio n of phonem ic stru c tu re in language, he rep eated ly
claim s th at the w orking lin g u ist will be fo rced to d ifferen tiate u tte r
ances th at have the sam e m eaning fro m u tte ra n c e s th at have d ifferen t
m eanings. The assu m p tio n th at "in ev ery speech-com m unity some
u tte ran c e s a re alike in fo rm and m eaning" he c a lls the "fundam ental
a ssum ption of lin g u istics" (LB, p. 78). This assum ption itse lf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
^ 11
" im p lie s th a t e a c h lin g u is tic f o rm h a s a c o n s ta n t and s p e c ific m e a n
in g " (L B , p. 145). T h u s , B lo o m fie ld s p e c ifie s c e r ta in lin g u is tic g o a ls
w ith r e s p e c t to m e a n in g , in s p ite of th e f a c t th a t th e y a p p e a r to c o n
tr a d i c t h is d e fin itio n s .
W hen th e phonology of a lan g u a g e h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d , th e r e r e
m a in s the t a s k of te llin g w h at m e a n in g s a r e a tta c h e d to th e s e v e r a l
p h o n e tic f o rm s . T h is p h a se of the d e s c r ip tio n is s e m a n tic s . It
is o r d in a r ily d iv id e d in to tw o p a r ts , g r a m m a r and le x ic o n . (L B ,
p. 138) '
I t is te m p tin g to d is tin g u is h m e a n in g a s he f i r s t d e fin e d it f ro m
; th e m e a n in g lin g u is ts a re o b lig e d to d e s c r ib e by in v o k in g th e c o n c e p ts
of c o m p e te n c e and p e rf o r m a n c e . T h at i s , th e m e a n in g th a t is d e -
' s c rib e d o nly by a d e s c r ip tio n of s itu a tio n s and r e s p o n s e s c o u ld be
; c a lle d p e rfo rm a n c e m e a n in g and a s c r ib e d to in d iv id u a l to k e n s of l in
g u istic f o rm s , w h e re a s th e c o n s ta n t and sp e c ific m e a n in g lin g u is ts
c a n and sh o u ld a c c o u n t f o r c o u ld be c a lle d c o m p e te n c e m e a n in g and
a s c r ib e d to ty p e s of lin g u is tic f o rm s . T h u s, w h at is im p o s s ib le in
p rin c ip le to d e s c r ib e is p e rf o r m a n c e m e a n in g (o r in o th e r t e r m s , th e
fu n ctio n of la n g u a g e ), w h ile c o m p e te n c e m e a n in g , b e c a u s e o f its c o n
s ta n c y and th e in d ep e n d e n c e f ro m p a r tic u la r s itu a tio n s and r e s p o n s e s
th a t r e s u l t fro m it, is a d e s c r ib a b le p a r t of th e s tr u c tu r e of lan g u a g e .
It is im p o r ta n t to n o te th a t B lo o m field 's c o n c e p tio n o f (c o m p e -
! ten c e ) m e a n in g is in no w ay a c o n c e p tio n of th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l
m e a n in g .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
We c a n d efin e th e [co m p eten ce] m e a n in g of a s p e e c h - f o rm a c c u
r a te ly w hen th is m e a n in g h a s to do. w ith so m e m a tte r of w h ich we
p o s s e s s s c ie n tific k n o w le d g e . We c a n d efin e th e n a m e s of m in
e r a l s , fo r e x a m p le , in t e r m s of c h e m is tr y and m in e ra lo g y , a s
w hen we sa y th a t th e o r d in a r y m e a n in g of th e E n g lis h w o rd s a lt
is ' so d iu m c h lo rid e (N a C l),' and we c a n d efin e th e n a m e s of p la n ts
o r éinim als by m e a n s of th e te c h n ic a l te r m s of b o tan y o r z o o lo g y ,
b u t we h av e no p r e c is e w ay of d e fin in g w o rd s lik e lo v e o r h a te ,
w hich c o n c e rn s itu a tio n s th a t h av e n o t b e e n a c c u r a te ly c la s s i f i e d - -
and th e s e la t t e r a r e in th e g r e a t m a jo r ity . (L B , p. 139)
iF o r m an y n a tu r a l p h e n o m e n a , in c lu d in g s a lt, th e u s e of a p a r tic u la r
t e r m p re c e d e d a s c ie n tific e x p o s itio n of th e t e r m 's r e f e r e n t. If th e
'c o r r e c t ' u s e of su c h a t e r m is m o re w id e s p re a d th a n an u n d e rs ta n d in g
iof th e t e r m 's s c ie n tific d e fin itio n , su c h a d e fin itio n w ill n e c e s s a r ily
n o t be p sy c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l f o r a t l e a s t so m e s p e a k e r s . F o r e x a m p le ,
i t is p o s s ib le fo r one to know w h at s a lt i s , and to u se the t e r m s a lt
a p p ro p r ia te ly , w ith o u t e v e r h av in g h e a rd of so d iu m o r c h lo r in e . P r e
s u m a b ly , B lo o m fie ld 's u t te r la c k of c o n c e rn f o r p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l
m ea n in g is due to th e p r e s u m e d im p o s s ib ility of v e rify in g th e 'e x i s
te n c e ' of an y th in g th a t r e s i d e s w ith in s p e a k e r s ' m in d s .
B lo o m fie ld d is tin g u is h e s two k in d s of m e a n in g w ith in w h at I
h a v e c a lle d c o m p e te n c e m e a n in g . S o m e tim e s h e r e f e r s to th e " p r i
m a r y v a lu e " (L B , p. 142) o f a lin g u is tic fo rm . He d is c u s s e s , in r e l a -
Ition to th is v a lu e , a ty p e of s p e e c h he c a lls " d is p la c e d " (L B , p. 141).
It is w o rth illu s tr a tin g th e s e c o n c e p ts w ith a r a th e r len g th y q u o tatio n .
A s ta rv in g b e g g a r a t th e d o o r s a y s I 'm h u n g r y , and th e h o u se w ife
g iv es h im food: th is in c id e n t, we s a y , e m b o d ie s th e p r im a r y o r
d ic tio n a ry m ea n in g of th e s p e e c h - f o rm I 'm h u n g ry . A p e tu la n t
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
13
c h ild , a t b e d -tim e , s a y s I 'm h u n g r y , and h is m o th e r , who is up to
h is t r i c k s , a n s w e rs by p a c k in g h im off to b e d . T h is is a n e x a m p le
of d is p la c e d sp e e c h . I t is a r e m a rk a b le f a c t th a t if a fo re ig n o b
s e r v e r a s k e d fo r th e m e a n in g of th e f o rm I 'm h u n g ry , b o th m o th e r
and c h ild w ould s till, in m o s t in s ta n c e s , d efin e i t f o r h im in te r m s
of th e d ic tio n a r y m e a n in g . L y in g , iro n y , je s tin g , p o e try , n a r r a
tiv e fic tio n , and th e lik e , a r e p ro b a b ly a s o ld and c e rta in ly a s
w id e s p re a d a s la n g u a g e . A s so o n a s we know th e d ic tio n a ry m e a n
in g of a f o rm , we a r e fu lly a b le to u s e it in d is p la c e d sp e ec h ; o u r
d ic tio n a r ie s and h a n d b o o k s o f f o re ig n lan g u a g e s n e e d te ll u s only
th e d ic tio n a r y m e a n in g . The d is p la c e d u s e s of s p e e c h a r e d e riv e d
in f a ir ly u n ifo rm w ays f ro m its p r im a r y v a lu e , and r e q u ir e no
s p e c ia l d is c u s s io n , [e m p h a s is m in e j. (L B , p. 149)
B lo o m fie ld lu m p s to g e th e r s e v e r a l d is p a r a te fu n c tio n s of l a n
g uage u n d e r th e r u b ric of d is p la c e d s p e e c h . W hat th e s e fu n c tio n s h av e
in co m m o n is th a t th e y a ll r e p r e s e n t in s ta n c e s of a s p e a k e r co n v ey in g
a m e s s a g e o th e r th a n th e l it e r a l m e s s a g e th a t w ould be d e riv e d by an
e x p lic a tio n of th e d ic tio n a ry o r p r im a r y m e a n in g s of th e m o rp h e m e s
in v o lv e d . If i t is tr u e , a s B lo o m fie ld c la im s , th a t d is p la c e d u s e s of
s p e e c h a r e d e riv e d in f a i r ly u n ifo rm w ay s f ro m its p r im a r y v a lu e ,
th e n it m u s t b e p o s s ib le to s ta te g e n e ra liz a tio n s w h ich r e la te d p r im a r y
and d is p la c e d s p e e c h . P re su m a .b ly th e g e n e ra liz a tio n s th a t r e la te p r i
m a r y m e a n in g s to iro n ic m e a n in g s , f o r e x a m p le , w ould be d iffe re n t
f ro m th o se r e la tin g p r im a r y m e a n in g s and o th e r ty p e s of d isp la c e d
s p e e c h . It is r e a s o n a b le to in q u ire w h e th e r lin g u is ts sh o u ld s ta te
so m e o r a ll of th e s e g e n e ra liz a tio n s . B lo o m fie ld d o e s n o t d is c u s s th is
is s u e . T he f a c t th a t he c h o se n o t to d is c u s s it le a d s one to a s s u m e th a t
he d id n o t r e g a r d th is a s a n a p p ro p r ia te p u r s u it of lin g u is ts . It a p p e a rs
th a t p r im a r y m e a n in g s w e re a ll th e lin g u is t w as e x p e c te d to in v e s tig a te .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
14 ;
The o th e r su b d iv is io n of c o m p e te n c e m e a n in g is r e p r e s e n te d in
a d is c u s s io n of a n o th e r k ind of re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e m e a n in g s of a
lin g u is tic fo rm . In d is c u s s in g te r m s lik e a r m s , le g s , and b a c k , w h ich
c a n r e f e r to body p a r ts o r to p a r ts of a c h a ir , B lo o m fie ld c a lls th e
b o d y - p a r t m e a n in g s 'n o r m a l' o r 'c e n t r a l ', and th e o th e r m e a n in g s
'm a r g in a l ', 'm e ta p h o r ic ', o r 'tr a n s f e r r e d '. R e w r i te s :
The c e n tr a l m e a n in g is fa v o re d in th e s e n s e th a t we u n d e rs ta n d a
fo rm (th a t i s , re s p o n d to it) in th e c e n tr a l m e a n in g u n le s s so m e
f e a tu re of th e p r a c tic a l s itu a tio n f o r c e s u s to lo o k to a tr a n s f e r r e d
m e a n in g . (L B , p. 149)
A g a in h e is r a is in g th e p o s s ib ility th a t f e a tu r e s o f th e e n v ir o n
m e n t ( p ra c tic a l s itu a tio n in h is te r m s ) a ffe c t in u n ifo rm w ays th e
s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n of p a r tic u la r lin g u is tic f o r m s . T h a t h e is n o t
r e f e r r i n g to th e lin g u is tic c o n te x t of f o rm s is m ad e c le a r by an e x a m
ple he g iv e s .
If we h e a r so m e o n e sa y T h e re g o e s a fo x ! w e lo o k fo r a r e a l fox,
and if th is is o u t o f th e q u e s tio n , we a r e lik e ly to tak e th e u t t e r
a n c e a s d is p la c e d s p e e c h (sa y , a s m a k e - b e lie v e o r a s p a r t of a
f a ir y - ta le ) . O nly if so m e s itu a tio n a l f e a tu r e f o r c e s u s - - s a y , if
th e s p e a k e r is p o in tin g a t a m a n - - d o we ta k e th e f o rm in th e t r a n s
f e r r e d s e n s e . (L B , p. 149)
B lo o m fie ld 's view of m e a n in g , th e n , c a n be su m m e d up in the
fo llo w in g w ay. M e an in g , b ro a d ly c o n c e iv e d , is a s itu a tio n - re s p o n s e
p a ir . It is a s s u m e d th a t in d iv id u a l lin g u is tic f o r m s h av e so m e c o n s ta n t
c o re m e a n in g w h ich c a n be s ta te d , th o u g h a c o m p le te s ta te m e n t of th e
c o re m e a n in g s of a ll th e f o rm s of a lan g u a g e w ould n o t b e e q u iv a le n t
to a c o m p le te s p e c ific a tio n o f m e a n in g in th e la n g u a g e . M ean in g ,
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
15
bro ad ly conceived, is not a p a rt of lin g u istics but ra th e r a th eo ry -o f-
everything. M eaning, narro w ly conceived, is a p a rt of lin g u istics.
The investig atio n of m eaning is a scien tific p u rsu it divorced fro m con
sid e ra tio n s of psychological rea lity . The ways in which co re m eanings
a re re la te d to o th er m eanings, for a p a rtic u la r fo rm , a re assum ed to
be re g u la r (in g e n eral), but th ese re g u la ritie s a re held to be of no co n
c e rn to the lin g u ist. The study of language and the study of the function
of language a re in trin sic ally se p ara te p u rsu its.
Chom sky
The C e n tra lity of Syntax
I have begun by taking a b rie f look a t the view of m eaning that
w as dom inant before Chom sky. Now I would like to take a c lo se r look
a t C hom sky's view s. The relativ e p rom inence of m eaning in Chom
skian lin g u istics will n e c essita te d isc u ssio n of se v e ra l asp ects of his
Standard and R evised Standard th e o rie s.
F ig u re 1 on the following page re p re s e n ts the m ajo r s tru c tu ra l
p ro p e rtie s of a Standard Theory g ram m ar.
In d iscu ssin g th is m odel of g ra m m a r, Chom sky h as th is to
say:
Such a d e scrip tio n of the fo rm of the sy n tactic com ponent m ay
seem stran g e if one c o n sid e rs the g en erativ e ru le s as a m odel for
the actu al co n stru ctio n of a sentence by a sp eak er. Thus it seem s
ab su rd to suppose th at the sp eak er f ir s t fo rm s a g en eralized
P h ra s e -m a rk e r by base ru le s and then te s ts it fo r w ell-fo rm ed n ess
by applying tra n sfo rm atio n al ru le s to see if it giv es, finally, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
S y n ta ctic C o m p o n en t
P h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s
P r e le x ic a l d e e p s tr u c tu r e
D eep s tr u c tu r e -
;
T r a n s f o r m a tio n a l r u le s
S u rfa c e s t r u c t u r e -
S e m an tic
C o m p o n en t
P h o n o lo g ic a l
C o m p o n en t
S e m an tic
in te r p re ta tio n
P h o n e tic
re p r e s e n ta tio n
F ig . 1. M a jo r S tru c tu ra l P r o p e r t ie s of a
S ta n d a rd T h e o ry G ra m m a r
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
17
w e ll-fo rm e d s e n te n c e . B ut th is a b s u rd ity is sim p ly a c o r o lla r y to
th e d e e p e r a b s u rd ity of re g a r d in g th e s y s te m of g e n e ra tiv e r u le s
a s a p o in t-b y -p o in t m o d e l fo r th e a c tu a l c o n s tr u c tio n of a s e n te n c e
by a s p e a k e r. . . . To th in k of a g e n e ra tiv e g r a m m a r in th e s e
t e r m s is to ta k e it to be a m o d e l of p e rfo rm a n c e r a t h e r th a n a
m o d e l of c o m p e te n c e , th u s to ta lly m is c o n c e iv in g its n a tu r e .
(C h o m sk y , 1965, pp. 139-140)
T h a t C h o m sk y h im s e lf s a y s th a t it s e e m s a b s u rd to su p p o se th e
s p e a k e r f i r s t f o rm s a g e n e ra liz e d p h r a s e - m a r k e r s u g g e sts th a t t h e r e
is so m e e v id e n c e th a t he d o e s n o t. The r e a s o n th a t th is p u tativ e e v i
d e n c e is n o t im p o r ta n t enough to d is c u s s h a s to do w ith th e d is tin c tio n
b e tw e en c o m p e te n c e cuid p e rf o r m a n c e . C h o m sk y s a y s th a t a m o d e l of
g r a m m a r th a t p ro v id e d a p o in t-b y -p o in t c o rre s p o n d e n c e to the w ay
s p e a k e r s a c tu a lly g e n e ra te s e n te n c e s w ould be a m o d e l of p e rfo rm a n c e .
In an in tu itiv e s e n s e , th is l a s t a s s e r tio n s e e m s to be t r u e - - t h e
g r a m m a r w ould no lo n g e r be s im p ly a d e s c r ip tio n of so m e in te r n a liz e d
k n o w led g e s y s te m , b u t r a t h e r a s e t of in s tr u c tio n s to p e rf o r m c e r ta in
o p e ra tio n s , m e n ta l a n d /o r p h y s ic a l, in o r d e r to p ro d u c e a c tu a l u t t e r
a n c e s . In a n o th e r s e n s e , th is a s s e r tio n is n o t so o b v io u sly tr u e , if it
i s tr u e a t a ll. N ote th a t th e c h a r a c te r i s t ic s of p e rfo rm a n c e c ite d
re p e a te d ly by C h o m s k y --e . g. , m e m o ry lim ita tio n s , f a ls e s t a r t s , th e
f in ite n e s s of p h y s ic a l o r g a n is m s - -w o u ld in no c a s e be r e p r e s e n te d in a
m o d el of g r a m m a r th a t c o n s titu te d a s e t of in s tr u c tio n s a b o u t how to
p ro d u c e a c tu a l u tte r a n c e s . If we v iew o u r lin g u is tic d e s c r ip tio n s a s
s e ts of r u le s , th e n c le a r ly we do n o t w an t to in clu d e r u le s on h o w
to -m a k e - a - f a ls e - s t a r t o r h o w - to - f a ll- v ic tim - to - m e m o r y - lim ita tio n s .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
T hus it s e e m s p o s s ib le , an d p e rh a p s e v e n d e s ir a b le , to h a v e a th e o
r e t i c a l m o d e l w h ich t e l l s u s how s p e a k e r s sh o u ld go a b o u t p ro d u c in g
a c tu a l u tte r a n c e s , and th is m o d e l w ill n o t in clu d e s ta te m e n ts w h ich
d e s c r ib e any of th e ju s t- m e n tio n e d c h a r a c te r i s t ic s of p e rf o r m a n c e . If
th e c h a r a c te r i s t ic s w h ich C h o m sk y c ite s a s p e rfo rm a n c e f a c to r s a re
n o t su c h a s w ould be a c c o u n te d f o r in a th e o r y of g r a m m a r th a t p r o
v id e s a p o in t-b y -p o in t c o rr e s p o n d e n c e to th e w ay s p e a k e r s a c tu a lly
p ro d u c e u tte r a n c e s , th e n it is n o t o b v io u s th a t su c h a th e o r y w ould
c o n s titu te a th e o ry of p e rf o r m a n c e .
K atz g iv es u s a m o re o r le s s e x p lic it a c co u n t of th e d is tin c tio n
b e tw e en w h at C h o m sk y c a lls c o m p e te n c e and p e rfo rm a n c e :
The th re e fu n d a m e n ta l q u e s tio n s w ith w hich a sy n c h ro n ic
d e s c r ip tio n of a p a r t i c u l a r la n g u a g e d e a ls a r e th e s e :
(1) W hat is know n by a s p e a k e r who is flu e n t in a n a tu r a l l a n
guage ? T h a t i s , w h a t f a c ts ab o u t h is lan g u a g e u n d e rlie h is a b ility
to c o m m u n ic a te w ith o th e r s in th a t la n g u a g e ?
(2) How is su c h lin g u is tic kno w led g e p ut in to o p e ra tio n to
a c h ie v e c o m m u n ic a tio n ? T h a t i s , how d o e s a s p e a k e r u s e su c h
lin g u istic k now ledge to c o n v e y h is th o u g h ts , o p in io n s, w is h e s ,
d e m a n d s , q u e s tio n s , e m o tio n s , and so o n t o o th e r s p e a k e r s ?
(3) How do s p e a k e r s c o m e to a c q u ire th is a b ility ? T h a t i s ,
w h at in n ate d is p o s itio n s an d d e v e lo p m e n ta l p r o c e s s e s a r e r e s p o n
sib le f o r tr a n s fo r m in g a n o n v e rb a l in fa n t in to a flu e n t s p e a k e r ?
A n a n s w e r to (1) m a y be r e f e r r e d to a s a 'lin g u is tic
d e s c r ip tio n '. . . .
An a n s w e r to (2) c o n s is ts of a t le a s t two p r o c e d u r e s . O ne is a
's e n te n c e re c o g n itio n p r o c e d u r e ', w h o se fu n ctio n is to a s s ig n to any
g iv e n p e r c e iv e d u tte r a n c e a p h o n e tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n , a s y n ta c tic d e
s c rip tio n , and a s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n . The fu n ctio n of th e o th e r
p ro c e d u re is to choo se an a p p ro p r ia te sy n ta c tic s tr u c tu r e f o r an y m e s -
sag e th a t th e s p e a k e r w is h e s to c o m m u n ic a te and to p ro v id e a p h o n e tic
r e p r e s e n ta tio n f o r t h a t s tr u c tu r e ; it is a 's e n te n c e p ro d u c tio n p r o c e
d u re '. T o g e th e r, th e tw o p r o c e d u r e s d e te rm in e h o w th e k n o w led g e of th e
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
19 :
language em bodied in the lin g u istic d escrip tio n is used by a speaker
to und erstan d and produce sen ten ces.
An answ er to (3) is a th eo ry of language acquisition. (1964,
pp. 78-79)
We m ay safely take (1) to be a c h a ra c te riza tio n of com petence and (Z)
to be a c h a ra c te riz a tio n of p erfo rm an ce.
This seem s to be a lo g ical se t of distin ctio n s to draw : (1) r e p
re s e n ts what a sp eak er knows; (3) how he com es to know it; and (2) how
he u se s what he knows.
The answ er to (2) d e serv e s a c arefu l look. It is one thing to
claim th at the th eo ry of p erfo rm an ce m u st include a sentence rec o g n i
tion pro ced u re (SRP), but an o th er to claim th at th is p ro ced u re m ust
assig n a phonetic re p re se n ta tio n , a syntactic d escrip tio n , and a sem an
tic in te rp re tatio n . One of the freq u en t claim s about our answ er to (1),
our c h a ra c te riza tio n of com petence, is th at the sta te m e n ts o r ru le s
which we draw up a re no n d irectio n al. T hus, if we su ccessfu lly r e p
re s e n t w l ^ a sp eak er knows, we also su ccessfu lly re p re s e n t a m eans
of relatin g a given phonetic rep re se n ta tio n to its ap p ro p riate sem antic
and syntactic rep re se n ta tio n (s). This being the c a se , a ll th at we need
dem and of our SRP is th at it co n v ert physical, acoustic events into
linguistic events of som e type. Once we have, say, a phonetic r e p r e
sentation of som e r e a l u tte ra n c e , we should be able to apply our
ru le s , our sta te m e n ts about com petence, to a rriv e a t the ap p ro p riate
syntactic and sem antic re p re se n ta tio n s. If the SRP is an a n a ly sis-b y -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20 !
syn th esis m ech an ism , then we assu m e th at the sy n th esis is achieved
by applying the ru le s of com petence.
This tre a tm e n t m akes a ra th e r strong though not un reaso n ab le
claim about the re la tio n sh ip betw een com petence and p erfo rm an ce,
nam ely, th at the in te rn alize d linguistic knowledge sy stem (com petence)
is av ailable fo r use in producing and understanding r e a l speech (p e r
form ance). It a p p ears th at K atz h im self had som ething quite s im ila r
in m ind. He w rote of h is th re e questions th at "the f ir s t . . . is lo g i
cally p rio r to the o th e rs" (p. 79). If the SRP is to be capable of doing ;
all K atz say s it m u st do, and com petence does not fo rm an in te g ral
p a rt of p e rfo rm an ce, then (1) is not lo g ically p rio r to (2). R ath er, (1)
and (2) can be p u rsu ed com pletely independently of one another.
The sentence production p ro ced u re (SPP) is com parably broad
in scope. If th is p ro ced u re p icks fo r som e 'm e s s a g e ' an ap p ro p riate
syntactic stru c tu re and p rovides a phonetic re p re se n ta tio n of th at
s tru c tu re , it m u st do so via the syntactic and phonological ru le s of
com petence, o r else o u r statem en ts about com petence a re irre le v a n t
in d eterm ining the n a tu re of the SPP .
It a p p e ars, then, th at we cannot d ism iss the a p p aren t a b s u r
dity of the stéindard th eo ry m odel by sim ply assigning the ab su rd ity to
perfo rm an ce fa c to rs .
Of c o u rse , th is line of arg u m en t depends on a conception of
com petence as th a t-w h ic h -is-u se d -in -p e rfo rm a n c e , a conception th at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
we fin d in K a tz an d e ls e w h e r e , b u t w h ich is im p lic itly d e n ie d by
C h o m sk y , p r e s u m a b ly b e c a u s e we do n o t h a v e an y c le a r and c o n v in c
ing e v id e n c e to ju s tif y a s su m in g th a t c o m p e te n c e is an in te g r a l p a r t of
p e rf o r m a n c e . On th e o th e r h a n d , we h a v e no c le a r and c o n v in cin g
ev id e n c e to ju s tif y a s su m in g th a t c o m p e te n c e is n o t a n in te g r a l p a r t of
p e rf o r m a n c e . W hat sh o u ld we do in a s itu a tio n lik e t h is ?
It s e e m s o b v io u s th a t we sh o u ld a c tiv e ly s e e k c le a r and c o n
v in cin g e v id e n c e f o r one o r th e o th e r a s s u m p tio n . B u t su p p o se we
lo o k ed f o r s u c h e v id e n c e and fa ile d to fin d it. W hat th e n ?
We c o u ld a s s u m e th a t we c a n in v e s tig a te c o m p e te n c e w ith o u t
b e in g tro u b le d by th is is s u e . T h is is e s s e n tia lly th e tra d itio n a l v iew
e x p o u n d ed by C h o m sk y , K a tz , and o th e r s . K a tz a p p a re n tly a s su m e d
th a t th e n o tio n of c o m p e te n c e th a t we a r r i v e a t in d e p e n d e n tly of any
c o n s id e r a tio n s o f p e rf o r m a n c e w ould im p ly a n a n s w e r to th e p ro b le m .
He w ro te :
. . . th is lo g ic a l p r io r ity d o e s n o t m e a n th a t th e a tte m p t to a n s w e r
(2) and (3) m u s t w a it f o r a fu ll a n s w e r to (1); r a t h e r , it m e a n s th a t
su b s ta n tiv e c o n trib u tio n s to w a rd an a n s w e r to (1) m u s t be a v a ila b le
in o r d e r th a t a tte m p ts to a n s w e r (2) an d (3) c a n b e g in . F u r t h e r
m o r e , it m e a n s - - a n d th is is c r i t i c a l - - t h a t th e k in d of a n s w e r th a t
w ill be g iv e n , o r so u g h t, fo r (2) and (3) is d e te rm in e d by th e kind
of a n s w e r w h ich is g iv en o r so u g h t f o r (1). (1964, p. 79)
•It i s , of c o u r s e , lo g ic a lly p o s s ib le to m a k e p r e c is e ly th e o p p o site
a s su m p tio n . T h a t i s , we co u ld a s s u m e th a t o u r n o tio n of c o m p e te n ce
w ill, o r s h o u ld , d ep en d on w h at we d is c o v e r a b o u t lan g u a g e a c q u is itio n
and lan g u a g e u s e .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
22
The problem h e re is th at we want to provide an account of th re e
r e la te d types of fa c ts ,(l)-(3 ). As yet, we have not a rriv e d at a s a tis
fac to ry account of any of (l)-{3). W hat we usually do in such c a s e s is
;to co n stru c t the stro n g e st (and th e re fo re m o st in terestin g ) hy p o th esis,
provided th at we do not sa c rific e te sta b ility in so doing. In th is c a se ,
if we assu m e that com petence and perfo rm an ce a re to be in v estig ated
se p ara te ly , and we achieve adequate th eo ries of each, we would n o n e
th e le s s be fo rced , on grounds of sim p licity , to abandon th ese th e o rie s
in fav o r of a single th eo ry th at accounted fo r the com petence and p e r
fo rm an ce fa c ts , if such a th eo ry becam e availab le. Thus, the s tro n g
e s t, m o st in te restin g hyp o th esis which seem s to be viable at p re se n t
is th a t com petence (an in te rn alize d sy stem of knowledge) ^ u sed in
p erfo rm an ce. This assu m p tio n w ill sev erely c o n stra in the notion of
possib le g ram m ar, which is em in en tly d e sira b le , and it is at le a s t as
testa b le as the tra d itio n a l c la im s about com petence, since additional
types of data a re ad m issib le as evidence.
T hese co n sid eratio n s lead us to dem and a th eo ry of com petence
th at is capable of being in co rp o rate d into the th eo ry of p erfo rm an ce.
Our com petence th eo ry m u st be a p lausible p a rt of the th eo ry of p e r
fo rm an ce. Thus, if C h om sky's m odel can be shown to be a b su rd as a
p a rt of a m odel of speech produ ctio n , we should rep lace his th eo ry with
one th at is not absurd.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
If we f a il to m a k e su c h a re p la c e m e n t, th e s ta tu s of fo rm a l
u n i v e r s a is is v e ry m u ch in dou b t. If, f o r e x a m p le , 1 w ish to c la im
th a t a f o rm a l u n iv e r s a l of n a tu r a l la n g u a g e s is th e p r e s e n c e , in so m e
s e n s e , of a s e t of p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s , b u t i t tu r n s o u t to be a b s u rd
to su p p o se th a t r e a l s p e a k e r s h av e in sid e th e i r h e a d s k n o w led g e of
p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s , it w ould a p p e a r th a t m y fo rm a l u n iv e r s a l is
m e r e ly a c la im th a t i t is p o s s ib le to d e s c r ib e an y n a tu r a l la n g u a g e , in
p a r t, by u s in g p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s . If, on th e o th e r h a n d , it tu r n s
ou t n o t to be a b s u rd to su p p o se th a t r e a l s p e a k e r s e m p lo y su c h r u le s ,
th e n m y u n iv e r s a l im p lie s a h y p o th e s is a b o u t h u m an lan g u a g e and th e
h u m an b r a in . T h is i s c e rta in ly m u ch m o re in te r e s tin g th a n éiny h y p o th
e s is a b o u t p o s s ib le f o rm a l s y s te m s fo r r e p r e s e n tin g lin g u is tic g e n
e r a liz a tio n s .
I t r e m a in s to be s e e n in w h at s e n s e , if an y , C h o m s k y 's s y n ta x -
c e n tr a l m o d e l is a b s u rd a s a p a r t of a m o d e l of p ro d u c tio n . S ince it
h a s a lr e a d y b e e n a rg u e d th a t th e m e n tio n e d p e rfo rm e m ce f a c to r s sh o u ld
n o t be d e s c r ib e d in t e r m s of r u le s f o r p ro d u c tio n , it w ill be a s su m e d
th a t th e p ro d u c tio n m o d e l w ith w h ich we sh o u ld be c o n c e rn e d is a
m o d el of an id e a l s p e e c h - p r o d u c e r , a s C h o m s k y 's g r a m m a r is a g r a m
m a r of a n id e a l s p e a k e r - h e a r e r .
H av in g m ad e th is a s s u m p tio n , we a r e in a p o s itio n to d is c o v e r
re a s o n s w hy th is s y n ta x - c e n tr a l m o d e l s e e m s a b s u rd a s a p ro d u c tio n
m o d e l. A ll we n e e d do is a s k w hy any s p e a k e r (in c lu d in g o u r id e a l
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
2 4
s p e a k e r) w ould e v e r e x p lo it h is c o m p e te n c e in o r d e r to g e n e ra te a
p h r a s e - m a r k e r and th e n f ill it w ith le x ic a l ite m s . The a n s w e r to th is
q u e s tio n is a r a t h e r o b v io u s o n e -- b e c a u s e he h a s s o m e th in g to say .
Since h e know s h is lan g u a g e p e rf e c tly an d is u n a ffe c te d by m e m o ry
lim ita tio n s and o th e r p e rfo rm a n c e f a c t o r s , we m u s t a s s u m e th a t he is
c a p a b le of e m p lo y in g h is c o m p e te n c e to m a tc h w h a t he w a n ts to sa y
w ith w h at h e d o e s sa y . In o th e r w o rd s , w h at - he - w an t s - to - s ay e q u a ls '
th e c o r r e c t s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n s of h is u tte r a n c e s .^ H o w e v e r,
s e m a n tic in fo rm a tio n of th e r e q u ir e d ty p e is n o t a v a ila b le u n til a fte r a
p h r a s e - m a r k e r h a s b e e n g e n e ra te d , f ille d w ith le x ic a l ite m s , and
i n te r p r e te d by p u re ly in te r p r e tiv e s e m a n tic r u le s .
T h is ty p e of t r e a tm e n t o f fe r s no in s ig h t in to how a s p e a k e r
a r r i v e s a t th e c o n c e p tio n of a p a r tic u la r s e m a n tic in te r p re ta tio n th a t
he w is h e s to co n v ey . A s C h o m sk y p o in ts o u t, it is a b s u rd to im a g in e
th a t h e c a n a r r i v e a t h is d e s ir e d m e s s a g e by ra n d o m ly g e n e ra tin g
p h r a s e - m a r k e r s and ra n d o m ly fillin g th e m w ith le x ic a l ite m s of th e
a p p ro p r ia te s y n ta c tic c la s s e s . F o r su c h a p ro c e d u r e to be p a r t of a
p ro d u c tio n m o d e l, th e s e ra n d o m p r o c e s s e s w ould h a v e to be in s ta n
ta n e o u s . If th e y ta k e up any tim e a t a ll, th e f a c t th a t th e s p e a k e r 's
c o m p e te n c e w ill g e n e ra te an in fin ite n u m b e r of s y n ta c tic an d s e m a n tic
e n titie s m e a n s th a t th e s p e a k e r , e v e n th o u g h he is lin g u is tic a lly 'p e r
f e c t ', sh o u ld f re q u e n tly fin d it im p o s s ib le to p ro d u c e a c o n te x tu a lly
a p p ro p r ia te u tte r a n c e w ith in a r e a s o n a b le le n g th of tim e . P u ttin g
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e copy rig h t ow ner. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n p ro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
2 5
to g e th e r tw o o r m o re s e n te n c e s in su c h a w ay th a t o th e r s p e a k e r s
co u ld te ll th e s e n te n c e s a r e in te n d e d to be r e la te d sh ould be a n e a r ly
h o p e le s s ta s k . H o w e v e r, m a in ta in in g th a t th e s e p r o c e s s e s a r e in s ta n -
jta n e o u s in r e a l s p e a k e r s is q u ite u n te n a b le . It is ta n ta m o u n t to a n
a s s e r tio n th a t th e r e le v a n t p sy c h o lo g ic a l p r o c e s s e s h av e no p h y s ic a l
b a s is , f o r if th ey d id th e y c o u ld n o t p o s s ib ly be in sta n ta n e o u s . T h is is
I a m e ta p h y s ic a l c o m m itm e n t th a t is n o t m e r e ly m e n ta lis tic , b u t a c tiv e ly
a n ti- s c ie n tif ic . If we w ish to c o n s tr u c t a p s y c h o lo g ic a lly p la u s ib le
ip ro d u c tio n m o d e l, th e n we c a n n o t a s s u m e th a t o u r id e a l s p e a k e r h a s
th e a b ility to fin d o r ap p ly r u le s in s ta n ta n e o u s ly .
T h is p ro b le m d e m o n s tra te s w hy th e S ta n d ard T h e o ry m o d e l
I c a n n o t be a m o d el of p ro d u c tio n , b u t n o t why it c an n o t be p a r t of a
p ro d u c tio n m o d el. It w ould a p p e a r th a t a ll we n e e d do to s a lv a g e th e
th e o r y is to p ro p o se so m e m e c h a n is m w h ich w ill n o t in v o lv e th e i n
sta n ta n e o u s a p p lic a tio n of o u r r u le s an d w ill d e te rm in e p a r tic u la r
o r d e r s of a p p lic a tio n of r u le s in o r d e r to p ro d u ce p a r tic u la r s e n te n c e s .
H o w e v e r, th e o n ly s o lu tio n s to th e p ro b le m se e m to be to
c la im (a) th a t a d e s ir e d , p a r tic u la r s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n c a n be
a r r i v e d a t by so m e m e a n s o th e r th a n th a t p ro v id e d by th e r u le s of
j c o m p e te n c e (and th is m e a n s m u s t be n o n lin g u is tic , o r we w ould n o t
so lv e th e p ro b le m , b u t m e r e ly p o se th e q u e s tio n anew ): o r (b) th a t th e
in te n d e d m e s s a g e sh o u ld n o t be th o u g h t of a s f o rm a lly id e n tic a l to a
s e m a n tic in te r p re ta tio n . T ho u g h K a tz (1964, p. 80) c h o o s e s (a), it
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
2 6
m u s t be r e g a r d e d a s c le a r ly u n d e s ir a b le . It p r e s u p p o s e s th e c o n v e r
g e n c e , in a sin g le fo rm a l e n tity , of two d iff e re n t s y s te m s , one a c c e s
s ib le to lin g u is ts and one n o t.^ A lte rn a tiv e (b), th o u g h a p p a re n tly m o re
p a la ta b le , is a c tu a lly j u s t a s b a d . It d o e s allo w i n v e s tig a to r s , be th ey
lin g u is ts o r o th e r w is e , to c o n s id e r w h a te v e r d a ta th e y fin d r e le v a n t to
th e p ro b le m a t h a n d , b u t i ts im p lic a tio n s a r e d e v a sta tin g . F o r if we
su c c e e d e d in co m in g up w ith so m e m e a n s of p ro d u cin g r e p r e s e n ta tio n s ‘
'of in te n d e d m e s s a g e s , th e s e r e p r e s e n ta tio n s w ould h a v e to be fo rm a lly
d is tin c t fro m , b ut c o n c e p tu a lly e q u iv a le n t to , p a r tic u la r s e m a n tic r e p
r e s e n ta tio n s . Now one g o al of g r a m m a r , a s c o n c e iv e d by C h o m sk y
and h is f o llo w e r s , is to m a tc h , w ith fin ite m e a n s , an in fin ite n u m b e r
of p h o n e tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s w ith an in fin ite n u m b e r of s e m a n tic r e p r e
s e n ta tio n s . G iven th a t th e g r a m m a r m u s t p ro v id e an in fin ity of s e m a n
tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , and a s s u m in g th a t th e n u m b e r of p o s s ib le in te n d e d
m e s s a g e s is a ls o in fin ite , (b) a c tu a lly r e p r o d u c e s th e e n tir e p ro b le m
of g r a m m a r . It p r e s u p p o s e s a fie ld of in q u iry w ith in w hich one s e e k s
to e x p lic a te th e m e a n s by w h ich in te n d e d m e s s a g e s d e te r m in e the
c h o ic e of p a r tic u la r s y n ta c tic an d le x ic a l in s e r tio n r u le s . T h e re is
e v e ry r e a s o n to hope th a t th is f ie ld of in q u iry w ould b e a m e r e n o ta -
tio n a l v a ria n t o f th e r u le s y s te m th a t is r e s p o n s ib le f o r p a ir in g p h r a s e -
m a r k e r s w ith th e i r s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n s , w h ich is to sa y th a t th e
w hole is s u e co u ld be av o id e d by m a k in g s e m a n tic s c e n tr a l.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
27
On a le s s th eo re tic a l lev el, the c e n tra lity of syntax fa ils to
acco rd with c e rta in c ru c ia l fac ts of first-la n g u a g e acquisition. C h il
d ren do not sim ply le a rn a language, they le a rn how to use a language.
The so cial, com m unicative function of language is so im p o rtan t, even
to c h ild ren , th at in o rd e r to convey th e ir m essa g e s they often devise
lin g u istic ru le s they cannot p ossibly have obtained by induction fro m
p rim a ry linguistic d ata (cf. Slobin, 1970). E vidence on first-la n g u a g e
acq u isitio n in d icates th at the child a c q u ire s the conceptual m ean s of
m aking a num ber of sem antic d istin ctio n s which c o n sisten tly , for a
tim e , run ahead of h is m a s te ry of syntax (e. g. , Slobin, 1970; Bloom ,
1968). That is , viewed ag a in st the ru le s of the adult language, the
child knows m o re about what he wants to e x p re ss than he knows about
how to e x p re ss it.
Slobin d isc u sse s a child in the p ro ce ss of acquiring English
who m ade a s tr e s s d istin ctio n betw een locative and p o ssessiv e. The
child produced u tte ra n c e s like (1) and (2) to convey the id ea s of lo c a
tio n and p o ssessio n , resp e c tiv e ly .
(1) C h risty ro o m .
(2) C h risty room . (The s tre s s e d item is u n d erlin ed .)
A nother child, in acq u irin g F in n ish , u sed word o rd e r d istin ctiv ely ,
though it is not distin ctiv e in the adult language,in sentences w here
f re e w ord o rd e r led to am biguity (B ow erm an, 1973). In both th ese
c a se s , lim itatio n s in the c h ild 's lin g u istic ab ilities m ade it im p o ssib le
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 :
fo r h im to p ro d u c e s e n te n c e s a s s y n ta c tic a lly an d m o rp h o lo g ic a lly
c o m p le x a s th e a d u lt s e n te n c e s w hich co n v ey th e id e a s h e w a n te d to
; e x p re s s . T h e s e lim ita tio n s c a u se d h im to r e s o r t to s tr a te g ie s n o t
e x p lo ited by th e a d u lt la n g u a g e . T h is s u g g e sts v e ry s tro n g ly th a t th e
p r o c e s s of le a r n in g a lan g u a g e is in la r g e m e a s u r e a p r o c e s s of l e a r n
ing how to giv e a p p ro p r ia te v e rb a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n to s e m a n tic n o tio n s . ,
W ith th is view of la n g u a g e , th e f a c t th a t c o g n itiv e d e v e lo p m e n t p re c e d e s
v e rb a l d e v e lo p m e n t s u p p lie s a m o tiv a tio n fo r lan g u a g e le a r n in g . T h at
i s , we l e a r n la n g u a g e so th a t we c a n c o n v e rt th o u g h ts and id e a s in to a
m ed iu m w h ich w ill m a k e th e m c o m m u n ic a b le .
E s s e n tia lly , w h a t I h av e b e e n a rg u in g f o r i s th e fo llo w in g : (1)
w hen we sp e a k of th e u s e of la n g u a g e , of lin g u is tic p e rf o r m a n c e , we
a re s p e ak in g of th e u s e of c o m p e te n c e , so th e l a t t e r sh o u ld be r e p r e
s e n te d f o rm a lly in su c h a w ay th a t it c a n be in c o r p o r a te d in to a th e o r y
of p ro d u c tio n ; (2) g iv en (1), a s y n ta x - c e n tr a l m o d e l of c o m p e te n c e is
u n d e s ira b le f o r a v a r ie ty o f r e a s o n s , none o f w h ich a p p ly to a
s e m a n tic s - c e n tr a l m o d e l.
A t th is p o in t one m ig h t w o n d er w hy, if th e ab o v e a rg u m e n ts
a re tr u e (o r p e rh a p s e v e n p la u s ib le ), C h o m sk y d id n o t th in k of th e m
and d e s ig n h is th e o r y a c c o rd in g ly . A fte r a ll, he d o e s c la im th a t lin
g u is tic s is u ltim a te ly a stu d y of th e h u m an m in d , so we sh o u ld e x p e c t
h im to be v e ry m u c h c o n c e rn e d w ith p s y c h o lo g ic a l p la u s ib ility a r g u
m e n ts of th e ty p e o ffe re d a b o v e. Why, th e n , d id h e a s s u m e th e
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
29
c e n tr a lity o f s y n ta x ?
The r e a s o n s s e e m to be f a ir ly c le a r , if s o m e w h a t c o m p le x .
F i r s t of a ll, C h o m s k y 's in te n t w as to r e p r e s e n t c o m p e te n c e by m e a n s
of a fo rm a l g r a m m a r c o n s is tin g of a s y s te m of e x p lic it r u le s . T h u s,
he s a y s:
By a g e n e ra tiv e g r a m m a r I m e a n s im p ly a s y s te m of r u le s th a t in
so m e e x p lic it and w e ll-d e fin e d w ay a s s ig n s s tr u c tu r a l d e s c r ip tio n s :
to s e n te n c e s . (1965, p. 8)
S econd, he e m b r a c e d th e tr a d itio n a l th e o r e tic a l t r i p a r t i t e d iv is io n of
lan g u a g e in to p h o n o lo g y , sy n ta x , and s e m a n tic s , an d h e r e g a r d e d s y n
ta c tic e v id e n c e a s b e in g m o re a c c e s s ib le to in v e s tig a tio n them s e m a n
tic e v id e n c e . He c la im e d th a t, a t th e le v e l of th e s e n te n c e , s e m a n tic s
w as d e p e n d e n t on s y n ta x . He w ro te :
It i s c le a r , a s K atz and F o d o r h av e e m p h a s iz e d , th a t th e m e a n in g
of a s e n te n c e i s b a s e d on th e m e a n in g of i ts e le m e n ta r y p a r t s and
th e m a n n e r of th e ir c o m b in a tio n . (1965, pp. 161-162)
The u s e of " b a s e d o n " h e r e r e n d e r s h is c la im so m e w h at v a g u e , b u t if
we ta k e i t to m e a n th a t th e s e m a n tic s of a s e n te n c e c a n be e x h a u stiv e ly
sp e c ifie d by sp e c ify in g th e s e m a n tic c o n te n t of i ts m o rp h e m e s (th a t i s ,
its " e le m e n ta r y p a r ts " ) and r e g u la r c o n s e q u e n c e s of th e s y n ta c tic p r in
c ip le s of th e lan g u a g e in q u e s tio n , th e n w h at we h a v e is a c la im th a t
sy n ta x is lo g ic a lly p r io r to s e m a n tic s . T h ird , th e r e e x is ts a c o n s id
e ra b le am o u n t of e v id e n c e and a rg u m e n t th a t p h o n o lo g ic a l u n its , in c lu d
ing th e w o rd , a r e n o t th e u n its in te r m s of w h ich s p e a k e r s c o n s tr u c t
o r i n te r p r e t s e n te n c e s . F o r e x a m p le , L a s h le y 's ( 1961) a n ti-M a rk o v
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
30
p r o c e s s a rg u m e n ts , w hich h a v e h a d a n o ta b le in flu e n ce a m o n g l i n
g u is ts , e ffe c tiv e ly p re c lu d e an y ty p e of g r a m m a r b a s e d on u n its a s
s m a ll a s o r s m a lle r th a n th e w o rd .
T h u s, th e r e c a n be no p h o n o lo g y -c e n tra l g r a m m a r b e c a u s e of
th e th ir d a rg u m e n t. T h e re c a n be no s e m a n tic s - c e n tr a l g r a m m a r b e
c a u se of th e s e co n d a rg u m e n t. T he r e q u ir e m e n t th a t we h a v e an
e x p lic it f o rm a l r u le s y s te m , c o u p le d w ith th e su p p o sed in a c c e s s ib ility ■
iof m e a n in g , m a k e s it im p o s s ib le to h av e a g r a m m a r in w h ich th e r e is
,no p r im a c y g iv en to any p a r tic u la r ty p e of r u le .
T he c r u c ia l f a c to r h e re is th e su p p o sed r e la tiv e in a c c e s s ib ility
of s e m a n tic s . It w ould n o t be an e x a g g e ra tio n to sa y th a t g e n e ra lly
lin g u is ts h a v e , in th e p a s t, f e lt th a t so little w as know n a b o u t m e a n in g
th a t th e r e w a s, in e ffe c t, no w ay to 'do s e m a n t ic s ', b u t th a t th e e x p li
c a tio n of sy n ta x , on th e o th e r h a n d , w as a t l e a s t a p o s s ib le ta s k .
T h e se f a c to r s ta k e n to g e th e r m ilita te a g a in s t an y th in g b u t a
s y n ta x - c e n tr a l m o d e l of g r a m m a r . H o w e v e r, sin c e ig n o ra n c e a b o u t
m ean in g is c r u c ia l h e r e , th is d e c is io n sh o u ld be a m e n a b le to m o d if ic a
tio n on th e b a s is of s u b s e q u e n t in v e s tig a tio n s in to m e a n in g . H i s to r i
c a lly , th e c e n tr a lity o f sy n ta x c a n be lo o k ed a t a s a u s e fu l e x p e d ie n t.
In th e s h o r t r u n , th is e x p e d ie n t is h a rd ly o b je c tio n a b le . B u t if lin g -
g u iS tic s is n o t to is o la te its e lf , if i t is to m ak e a s u b s ta n tiv e c o n tr ib u
tio n to th e u n d e rs ta n d in g of th e h u m a n m in d , su ch an e x p e d ie n t c a n n o t
be a c c e p te d a s a lo n g - te r m c o m m itm e n t. We m u s t e v e n tu a lly a s k
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
31
o u r s e lv e s w h a t r e a l g r a m m a r s lo o k lik e , and e s ta b lis h g r a m m a tic a l
m o d e ls on th e b a s is o f th e a n s w e r to th a t q u e s tio n .
S ta n d ard T h e o ry D eep S tru c tu re
In a d d itio n to th e c e n tr a lity o f sy n ta x , a d e fin in g c h a r a c te r i s t ic
of th e S ta n d a rd T h e o ry (ST) is th e le v e l of d e e p s tr u c tu r e (DS). T h e re
a r e , I b e lie v e , so m e a rg u m e n ts p e rta in in g p r e c is e ly to th e q u e s tio n of
the e x is te n c e o f DS th a t sh o u ld be m e n tio n ed h e r e . C h o m sk y h im s e lf
h a s a b an d o n ed th e ST n o tio n of DS w ith o u t ab an d o n in g s y n ta x - c e n tr a lity .
: W hat I w ish to do h e r e is to ad d u ce a n u m b e r of a rg u m e n ts fo r r e j e c t
ing ST DS, th e n go on to show th a t th e s e sa m e a rg u m e n ts a p p ly to
C h o m s k y 's s u g g e ste d r e v is io n of th e n o tio n , th a t i s , th e R e v is e d
S ta n d a rd T h e o ry (RST) n o tio n of DS. W hat I h ope to d e m o n s tra te is
th a t a ll th e e x te r n a l e v id e n c e th a t co u ld be c o n s id e r e d r e le v a n t in d e
c id in g w h e th e r th e le v e l of DS (ST o r RST) is p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l f a ils
to m o tiv a te th is le v e l and s u g g e sts only th e p sy c h o lo g ic a l r e a lity of a
le v e l of r e p r e s e n ta tio n of m e a n in g .
T he le v e l of DS w as c o n c e iv e d , in th e S T , a s th e le v e l w hich
c o m p le te ly d e te r m in e d th e m ea n in g of a s e n te n c e . T h is is c le a r fro m
ithe fo llo w in g q u o ta tio n s f ro m C h o m sk y (1965):
T he s y n ta c tic c o m p o n e n t of a g r a m m a r m u s t s p e c ify , f o r e a c h
s e n te n c e , a d e e p s tr u c tu r e th a t d e te r m in e s i ts s e m a n tic i n t e r p r e
ta tio n an d a s u rf a c e s tr u c tu r e th a t d e te r m in e s i ts p h o n e tic i n t e r
p r e ta tio n . (p. 16)
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
3 2
W hen we d e fin e "d e e p s tr u c tu r e s " a s " s tr u c tu r e s g e n e ra te d by th e
b a s e c o m p o n e n t," we a r e , in e ffe c t, a s su m in g th a t th e s e m a n tic
i n te r p r e ta tio n of a s e n te n c e d e p e n d s o n ly on its le x ic a l ite m s and
th e g r a m m a tic a l fu n c tio n s and r e la tio n s r e p r e s e n te d in th e u n d e r
ly in g s tr u c tu r e s in w h ich th e y a p p e a r. T h is is th e b a s ic id e a th a t
h a s m o tiv a te d th e th e o r y of tr a n s fo r m a tio n a l g r a m m a r s in c e its
in c e p tio n , (p. 36)
G iven so m e DS, a ll one n e e d do is ap p ly p u re ly i n te r p r e tiv e s e m a n tic
r u le s and an a p p ro p r ia te s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n is th e r e s u l t. The DS
i ts e lf is ( e s s e n tia lly ) th e r e s u l t of th e p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s and the
p r o c e s s of le x ic a l in s e r tio n . T he le x ic a l ite m s b rin g w ith th e m fro m
th e le x ic o n t h e i r in h e r e n t s e m a n tic p r o p e r tie s . T he fu n c tio n s of the
p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s a re to d efin e b a s ic g r a m m a tic a l r e la tio n s and
sp e c ify a n a b s tr a c t u n d e rly in g o r d e r of e le m e n ts in DS.
C h o m sk y show ed th a t a v a rie ty of e a s ily d e m o n s tra te d lin g u is
tic in tu itio n s co u ld be r e p r e s e n te d , in p a r t a t l e a s t , by e m p lo y in g th is
c o n c e p tio n of DS. C o n s id e r, fo r e x a m p le , th e fo llo w in g in tu itiv e ly
sy n o n y m o u s s e n te n c e s :
(3) I e x p e c te d a s p e c ia lis t to e x a m in e Jo h n .
(4) I e x p e c te d Jo h n to be e x a m in e d by a s p e c ia lis t.
C h o m sk y s a y s th a t th e s e c o g n itiv e ly sy n o n y m o u s s e n te n c e s h av e e s s e n
tia lly the s a m e u n d e rly in g ( i.e . , deep) s tr u c tu r e . T he r e a s o n th a t th e y
a re c o g n itiv e ly sy n o n y m o u s is th a t th e p a r ts b e a r th e s a m e g r a m m a ti
c a l r e la tio n s to one a n o th e r in DS, th o u g h th is is n o t o b v io u s f ro m an
e x a m in a tio n o f s u rf a c e s tr u c tu r e . T he r e a s o n th e D S 's a r e o n ly " e s
s e n tia lly " th e s a m e is th a t th e y m a y d iffe r in w h a te v e r su b tle
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
33
p ro p e rtie s of m eaning we can a s so c ia te with p a ssiv e s v e rsu s activ es in
g en eral. If they w ere com pletely synonym ous, and could be re la te d by
som e syntactic g en eralizatio n , th e re is no rea so n to suppose th at they
would have anything but id en tical D S 's.
S im ilarly , given an am biguous sentence which h as a single s u r
face s tru c tu re , the am biguity would be re p re se n te d exp licitly by having
m o re than one DS so u rce fo r the sentence.
While th is is all well and good, the fact is th at it nev er should
have been reg a rd e d as evidence fo r DS. If two sen ten ces a re cogni
tiv ely synonym ous, th at is , if they have (essen tially ) the sam e m ea n
ing, the th eo ry of g ram m ar should recognize th is ex p licitly by a s sig n
ing them (essen tially ) the sam e sem antic in te rp re tatio n . This is not
at a ll the sam e thing as saying th at the th eo ry of graim m ar should
a ssig n them the sam e, e sse n tia lly the sam e, o r even rem o tely rela te d
D S's. A fter a ll, DS only d e te rm in e s the m eaning of the sentence; the
m eaning itse lf is re p re se n te d by applying sem antic in te rp re tiv e ru le s
(s ir 's). T here is no evidence, nor was th ere even an a p rio ri claim ,
th at the SIR's could not take two d ifferen t DS's and produce sem antic
in te rp re ta tio n s th at w ere id en tical.
M o reo v er, som e g ram m arian s cam e to tre a t C hom sky's notions
of DS su b ject and object as co v er te rm s for a v a rie ty of ex clusively
sem antic rela tio n s betw een sentence p a rts (see esp . F illm o re , 1968,
1969, 1970). In fac t, it seem s im p o ssib le to im agine th at in fo rm atio n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34 ;
of th e w h o -d id -w h a t-a n d -to -w h o m ty p e w ould n o t b e p r e s e n t in th e
se m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n . If it i s , th e n c e rta in ly it c o u ld be th e r e
b e c a u s e lo g ic a l s u b je c ts and lo g ic a l o b je c ts r e c e iv e d iff e re n t and c o n
s is te n t tr e a tm e n t in DS, b u t th e r e is no w ay to r u le o u t th e p o s s ib ility
th a t th e SIR's co u ld su p p ly th e d e s ir e d in fo rm a tio n e v e n if th e r e w e re
no su c h d iff e re n t an d c o n s is te n t tre a tm e n t.
T he c a s e w ith am b ig u o u s s e n te n c e s is s o m e w h a t d iffe re n t. If
it is s tip u la te d th a t th e a p p lic a tio n of SIR's in v o lv e s no c h o ic e , th e n a
g iv en DS in p u t m u s t a lw a y s y ie ld a sin g le s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n .
T h is m e a n s th a t an y a m b ig u o u s se n te n c e m u s t h a v e m o re th a n one DS
r e p r e s e n ta tio n , b u t i t d o e s n o t p re c lu d e th e p o s s ib ility th a t an u n a m
b ig u o u s s e n te n c e co u ld h a v e m o re th a n one DS r e p r e s e n ta tio n , so th e
fa c t th a t th e th e o r y a s s ig n e d m o re th an one DS to a p a r tic u la r s e n
te n c e w ould n o t s u ffic e to e s ta b lis h th e e x is te n c e of a m b ig u ity . The
tr u e t e s t of a m b ig u ity w ould be w h e th e r th e g r a m m a r m a tc h e d a p a r
tic u la r s e n te n c e w ith m o re th a n one s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n . T h is
w ould a ls o be th e o n ly u n ifo rm , e x p lic it w ay th e g r a m m a r w ould r e c o g
n iz e in tu itiv e a m b ig u ity .
T he p o in t of a ll th is is n o t th a t it is im p o s s ib le to r e p r e s e n t
th e s e in tu itiv e ju d g m e n ts by m e a n s of th e p r o p e r tie s of D S 's , b u t o n ly
th a t th e s e ju d g m e n ts do n o t p ro v id e a n y th in g lik e c le a r s u p p o rt fo r
su ch a le v e l. A ll of th e in tu itio n s DS w a s p u r p o rte d to h a n d le w ould be
r e p r e s e n te d by a g r a m m a r th a t p ro v id e d a n a d e q u a te a c c o u n t of
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
35
se m a n tic s w h e th e r o r n o t i t e m p lo y e d th e n o tio n of DS. (It is u n ten a b le
to a rg u e th a t d o in g aw ay w ith DS w ould c r e a te an u n fe a s ib le c o m p ile a - ■
tio n of th e s e m a n tic r u le s , sin c e lit tl e is know n a b o u t th e s e r u le s a t
p r e s e n t.) N one o f the e v id e n c e r e q u ir e s u s to re c o g n iz e a le v e l of DS
b e c a u s e n one o f th e e v id e n c e in d ic a te s th a t by su c h a r e c o g n itio n we
a r r iv e a t th e o n ly , o r e v e n th e b e s t, d e s c r ip tio n of n a tu r a l lan g u a g e s .
If, h o w e v e r, the n o tio n o f DS is a s c ie n tific n o tio n , th e n th e
c la im th a t it e x is ts m u s t be a te s ta b le c la im . How c a n we ad d u ce
e v id e n c e th a t w ould s u p p o rt o r d is c o n firm th is c la im ?
It d o e s n o t s e e m th a t we c a n t e s t th e r e a lity of DS d ire c tly .
We do h av e m o re o r l e s s d i r e c t a c c e s s to a n u m b e r o f in tu itio n s a b o u t
sy n ta x and m e a n in g , b u t th e s e a r e co n fin ed to s u rfa c e s tr u c tu r e s on
th e one h an d an d s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n s on th e o th e r . C o n s id e rin g
th e n a tu r e of th e g e n e s is of D S 's, we co u ld ad d u ce im p r e s s iv e su p p o rt
fo r DS if we c o u ld d e m o n s tra te th e e x is te n c e of p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s
and a p r o c e s s o f le x ic a l in s e r tio n .
I n te r e s tin g ly en o u g h , th o u g h th e r e a r e a tte m p ts to g a th e r e x
p e rim e n ta l e v id e n c e to b r in g to b e a r on th e DS q u e s tio n , n one th a t I
know of h a s ta k e n th is a p p ro a c h . Of c o u rs e , th is a p p ro a c h is a r a t h e r
c o m p le x one. I t w ill n o t do to e s ta b lis h th e e x is te n c e of le x ic a l i n s e r
tio n o n ly , n o r w ou ld it do to e s ta b lis h th e e x is te n c e o f a s tr u c tu r e in to
w hich le x ic a l ite m s a r e i n s e r te d , s in c e th e n a tu r e of DS is d e te rm in e d
n o t by th e e x is te n c e of th e s e th in g s b u t by th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e y
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
3 6
c o m e in to e x is te n c e . T h u s, fo r th e n o tio n of DS to be ju s tif ie d , i t is
n e c e s s a r y th a t th e p r e le x ic a l s tr u c tu r e b e a t r e e o r its e q u iv a le n t, w ith
la b e lle d s y n ta c tic n o d e s , sp e c ify in g a b s tr a c tly a n u m b e r of g r a m m a ti
c a l r e la tio n s , an d r e p r e s e n tin g a p a r t i c u l a r , u n d e rly in g lin e a r o r d e r
of th e e le m e n ts w h ich w ill f ill th e tr e e .
The b e s t w ay to ad d u ce e v id e n c e fo r a ll th e s e s e p a r a te t r a i t s
w ould s e e m to be to ad d u ce e v id e n c e fo r th e e x is te n c e of p h r a s e -
s tr u c tu r e r u le s . If su c h r u le s co u ld be d e m o n s tra te d , th e b a ttle would
be w on, sin c e th e y s p e c ify e x a c tly th e d e s ir e d k in d of s tr u c tu r e , and
th e ir e x is te n c e w ould n e c e s s ita te a p r o c e s s of le x ic a l in s e r tio n .
U n fo rtu n a te ly , h o w e v e r, p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s a re th e m o s t
a b s tr a c t r u le s in th e g r a m m a r , th e f a r t h e s t re m o v e d fro m any le v e l of
w h ich th e r e e x is ts d i r e c t in tu itiv e e v id e n c e . T he d e c is iv e c o n s id e r a
tio n in a rg u m e n ts a b o u t th e f o rm of p a r tic u la r p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s
is w h e th e r th e s y s te m of p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s r e s u l ts in a le v e l
(DS) w h ich e x p e d ite s th e s ta te m e n t of w h at we su p p o se to be v a lid s y n
ta c tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s (se e R o s e n b a u m , 1967, C h ap . 2, and Ja c k e n d o ff,
1971, C h ap . 1). H is to r ic a lly , th e r u le s w e re p o s tu la te d b e c a u s e p r io r
c o n c e p tio n s of g r a m m a r c o u ld n o t a c c o u n t, in p r in c ip le , e v e n fo r th e
fu n d a m e n ta l d is tin c tio n b e tw e en g r a m m a tic a l and u n g r a m m a tic a l s e n
te n c e s in a lan g u a g e , an d b e c a u s e th e lin g u is t's gOcil a t th e tim e w as
c o n c e iv e d a s a n a lo g o u s to p ro g ra m m in g a m a c h in e in su c h a w ay th a t it
w ould h a v e the a b ility to p ro d u c e a lin g u is tic o u tp u t e q u iv a le n t to th a t
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
37
w h ich an id e a l s p e a k e r - h e a r e r of a lan g u a g e m ig h t p ro d u c e . G iv en th is
g o a l, and a s su m in g th a t th e n o tio n of v a lid sy n ta c tic g e n e ra liz a tio n is
n o t a n a p r io r i n o tio n , th e n it w ould s e e m th a t th e c o n c e p t of DS is
ju s tif ia b le . If we n e e d so m e le v e l of s tr u c tu r e fro m w h ich to s ta te o u r
e m p ir ic a lly d is c o v e r e d s y n ta c tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s , we w ill n e e d so m e
m e a n s of 'c r e a tin g ' th is le v e l of s tr u c tu r e if o u r g r a m m a r s a r e to be
c o m p le te and e x p lic it. A s lo n g a s we do 'm a c h in e g r a m m a r s ' we h a v e
no r e a s o n to fin d fa u lt w ith th is t r e a tm e n t. We h av e an a p p a re n tly a d e -
q u te m e th o d , and no e v id e n c e a b o u t p s y c h o lo g ic a l r e a lity c a n f o rc e u s
to r e c o n s id e r o u r p o s itio n , b e c a u s e m a c h in e s do n o t h a v e p s y c h e s . We
m a y n o t h a v e p ro v e d th a t p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s a r e th e o nly w ay of
p ro d u c in g th e d e s ir e d s tr u c tu r e s , b u t a s lo n g a s th ey a r e e q u iv a le n t
in o u tp u t to o th e r p o s s ib le w a y s , no ty p e of e v id e n c e co u ld f o rc e u s to
ab an d o n th is tr e a tm e n t. A ll m e a n s o f g e n e ra tin g th e r ig h t s tr u c tu r e s
w ould be n o ta tio n a l v a r ia n ts of e a c h o th e r .
H o w e v e r, if o u r g o al is to d is c o v e r th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l
g r a m m a r , th e n we c a n n o t be s a tis fie d w ith an a r b i t r a r y c h o ic e am o n g
n o ta tio n a l v a ria n ts , n o r c a n we c h o o se am o n g th e m on th e b a s is of
w h at we know a b o u t m a c h in e s . In v e s tig a to rs who a p p re c ia te d th e s ig
n ific a n c e of th is p ro b le m h a v e a tte m p te d to t e s t DS in a l e s s c o m p le x
w ay th a n th e d ir e c t m eth o d o u tlin e d ab o v e.
W hat th e y h av e d o n e , in g e n e ra l, is to a tte m p t to ju s tif y DS by
g a th e rin g e v id e n c e f o r th e p sy c h o lo g ic a l r e a lity of p a r tic u la r t r a n s -
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
- - ......
fo rm a tio n a l r u le s . T he a rg u m e n t i s th is : if tr a n s fo r m a tio n a l r u le s
c a n be show n to e x is t, th e n th e s tr u c tu r e s th a t su c h r u le s p r e s u p p o s e
Im u st a ls o e x is t; s in c e DS is th e in p u t to th e tr a n s fo r m a tio n a l r u le s ,
th e e x is te n c e of th e tra n s f o r m a tio n a l r u le s p ro v e s th e e x is te n c e of
th e i r in p u t.
U n fo rtu n a te ly , th is is an e x tr e m e ly d iffic u lt w ay of e s ta b lis h in g
th e le v e l of D S --m u c h m o re d iffic u lt th a n m ig h t be im a g in e d . F i r s t of '
a ll, th e r e is th e c u s to m a ry p ro b le m of d e te rm in in g w h e th e r p o s itiv e
ev id e n c e fo r a p a r tic u la r tr a n s f o r m a tio n is e v id e n c e fo r a u n iq u e f o r
m a l o b je c t o r on ly f o r a s e t of p o s s ib le fo rm a l o b je c ts e q u iv a le n t in
fu n ctio n . F o r e x a m p le . S avin and P e rc h o n o c k (1965) r e p o r t e v id e n c e
fo r c e r ta in tra n s f o r m a tio n a l r u le s th a t i s , in fa c t, a t b e s t s im p ly e v i
de n c e fo r th e e x is te n c e of c e r ta in tim e -c o n su m in g m e n ta l o p e ra tio n s .
T h e re is n o th in g in t h e i r e v id e n c e to su p p o rt an y p a r tic u la r f o rm a l
r e p r e s e n ta tio n of th e o p e ra tio n s th e y a rg u e f o r. B e v e r (1970) p r e
s e n ts so m e r u le s c a lle d " p e rc e p tu a l s tr a te g ie s " th a t a r e s im il a r in
fu n ctio n to tr a n s fo r m a tio n a l r u le s a p p lie d b a c k w a rd s, b u t w h ich do n o t
p re s u p p o s e c o m p le te t r e e s a t th e s u rf a c e s tr u c tu r e le v e l.^
S econd, e v e n if th e f o rm a l d e ta ils of tr a n s fo r m a tio n a l r u le s
co u ld in so m e c a s e s be v e rif ie d e x p e rim e n ta lly , th e le v e l o f DS w ould
n o t be e s ta b lis h e d u n le s s i t so m eh o w c o u ld be show n th a t a p a r t i c u l a r
tra n s fo r m a tio n a l ru le i s th e f i r s t su c h r u le to ap p ly and th e f o rm a l
d e ta ils of th is ru le w e re c o n firm e d . T h is is th e c a s e b e c a u s e , s tr i c t l y
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
39
sp e a k in g , on ly th e f i r s t tr a n s f o r m a tio n a l r u le ta k e s DS a s its in p u t.
A ll l a t e r r u le s ta k e in te r m e d ia te s tr u c tu r e s a s in p u t.
If we s u rv e y th e p sy c h o lin g u is tic e v id e n c e fo r DS, we fin d th a t
;m o st of th is e v id e n c e p ro v id e s s tro n g m o tiv a tio n f o r b e lie v in g th a t
th e r e is a le v e l of m e a n in g d is tin c t f ro m s u rfa c e s tr u c tu r e (e. g. , M il
l e r and C h o m sk y , 1963; B lu m e n th a l, 1967; B lu m e n th a l and B o a k e s,
: 1967; S a c h s, 1967). Of c o u r s e , a g r a m m a r w ith DS p ro v id e s su c h a
le v e l, n a m e ly , th e s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n w h ich is th e o u tp u t of th e
iSIR s. T h e re a p p e a r s to be a b s o lu te ly no e x p e rim e n ta l e v id e n c e th a t
s u p p o rts th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e r e m u s t be a le v e l of DS a p a r t f ro m a
le v e l of s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n and no e v id e n c e th a t DS is a sin e q ua
n o n fo r a r r iv in g a t a le v e l of s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n .
Of c o u r s e , th e r e i s no e v id e n c e to show th a t th e le v e l of DS
d o e s n o t e x is t. (T h is m a y be a c o n se q u e n c e of th e d iffic u ltie s in v o lv ed
in te s tin g its e x is te n c e .) T he lin g u is t is f r e e , th e n , to a s s u m e su ch a
le v e l if i t is e x p e d ie n t, so lo n g a s he is w illin g to giv e e q u a l c o n s id e r a
tio n to o th e r a s s u m p tio n s . T h is C h o m sk y and h is fo llo w e rs h av e n o t,
a p p a re n tly , b e e n w illin g to do.
M o re th a n o n c e C h o m sk y h a s a rg u e d a g a in s t h is d e tr a c to r s
w ith w h at I w ill c a ll th e N o ta tio n a l V a ria n ts A rg u m e n t (NVA) (C h o m sk y ,
1969, 1972). T he e s s e n c e of th is a rg u m e n t is th a t s e v e r a l t h e o r ie s
w h ich a r e a p p a re n tly d iff e re n t fro m C h o m s k y 's (e. g. , C a s e G r a m m a r,
G e n e ra tiv e S e m a n tic s ) a r e in f a c t n o t d iff e re n t, b u t m e r e ly a lte rn a tiv e .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
40
equivalent ways of fo rm u latin g h is theo ry .
This argum ent, fo rtu n ately , is absu rd . If it w ere not ab su rd ,
we would be in the lam entable p o sition of having to choose am ong a l
tern a tiv e fo rm al sy stem s th at g en erate the sam e output on the b a sis of
sim p licity alone. H ow ever, sim p licity can only be used to choose
among com plete g ra m m a rs. As long as th ere a re a re a s in which our
g ram m ars a re em p iric a lly inadequate, we will be unable to a s s e s s the
com plexity of com plete g ra m m a rs. Since we have no com plete g ra m
m a r, we cannot accept o r re je c t extant approaches on the b a sis of ( r e l
ative) sim p licity .
The ab su rd ity of the arg u m en t re s ts sq u arely on what it m eans
to c laim that two th e o rie s a re n otational v a ria n ts. They a re equivalent
in th at they account for the sam e se t of fa c ts, but they a re v a ria n ts b e
cause they account fo r th ese fac ts in fo rm ally d istin ct w ays, o r, in
oth er w ords, the d e ta ils a re d ifferen t, but the outcom e is the sam e.
Thus, when Chom sky o ffe rs an NVA he gives us no rea so n to p re fe r h is
th eo ry to any of its n o tational v a ria n ts. If his arg u m en ts w ere c o rre c t,
how ever, he would be d em o n stratin g th at none of the putative a lte rn a
tive th e o rie s is su p e rio r to h is th eo ry .
If we wish to co n cern o u rse lv e s with the psychologically re a l
g ra m m a r, we cannot accept th ese a rg u m en ts. C onsider the c laim they
m ake. Given any n um ber of g ra m m a rs , e .g . , G^, G^, G^ . . . G^,
all of which had the sam e d e sire d output, the NVA is a claim th at it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
d o e s n o t m a tte r w hich g r a m m a r we c h o o s e .^ T h is is a c la im th a t th e
w ay k now ledge of g r a m m a r i s q u a n tifie d , th e w ay th e c o m p o n e n ts of
g r a m m a r a re a r r a y e d r e la tiv e to e a c h o th e r , e v e n the ty p e s of c o m p o - ,
n e n ts p r e s e n t, a r e a ll ir r e le v a n t a s lo n g a s th e g r a m m a r d is tin g u is h e s
g r a m m a tic a l f ro m u n g r a m m a tic a l s e n te n c e s , re c o g n iz e s a m b ig u ity ,
and so on. A s a c la im a b o u t th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l g r a m m a r , th is is
a c la im th a t, th o u g h a lm o s t a ll o f u s l e a r n to s p e a k so m e lan g u a g e , it
is n o t n e c e s s a r y th a t we s h a re an y p a r t i c u l a r c o m p o n e n ts of k n o w led g e.
You m a y h av e a s e t of p h r a s e - s tr u c tu r e r u le s w h ich you u s e to g e n e ra te
e m p ty s y n ta c tic t r e e s , w h ile I m a y h a v e a c a s e g r a m m a r w h ich g e n e r
a te s b a s e s tr u c tu r e s c o n ta in in g c e r t a in k in d s of s e m a n tic e v id e n c e n o t
p r e s e n t in y o u r e m p ty t r e e s .
W hile th is m ay in f a c t be th e c a s e , th e o nly ev id e n c e fo r i t
w ould be th a t it is p o s s ib le to r e p r e s e n t th e s a m e b a s ic lin g u is tic d a ta
w ith e ith e r a p p ro a c h (th a t i s , th e NVA its e lf ) . T he f a c t th a t c h ild r e n
a ll o v e r th e w o rld go th ro u g h a p p ro x im a te ly th e sa m e s te p s in a c q u ir
ing t h e i r n a tiv e la n g u a g e , r e g a r d le s s of w h at it i s , is r a t h e r s tr o n g e r
e v id e n c e a g a in s t th is v iew . In f a c t, a lm o s t e v e ry th in g we know a b o u t
f ir s t- la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n a rg u e s a g a in s t th is view .
E v e n m o re dcim ning th a n lan g u a g e a c q u is itio n d a ta , h o w e v e r,
is th e f a c t th a t on th is v iew no a s s e r ti o n ab o u t g r a m m a r w ould be
a m e n a b le to e x p e rim e n ta l in v e s tig a tio n , s in c e th e r e is no n e e d f o r an y
g iv en in d iv id u a l to p o s s e s s an y p a r t i c u l a r q u a n tu m of g r a m m a tic a l
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
4 2
k n o w led g e. The o nly p o s s ib le f a c to r th a t co u ld in flu e n ce o u r c o n c e p
tio n s of th e n a tu r e of g r a m m a r w ould be a ch an g e in w h a t is c o n s id e re d
to be th e d a ta of lin g u is tic s . T h a t i s , we w ould h av e to a g re e on
so m e ch an g e in w h at h a s b e e n la b e le d th e " d e s ir e d o u tp u t," and th e n
m a k e c h a n g e s in o u r g r a m m a r ( s ) to a c c o m m o d a te th e new d e s ir e d o u t
p u t, o r in v e n t n ew g r a m m a r s to do so . In e ith e r c a s e , we h a v e no
r e a s o n to su p p o se th a t o u r s itu a tio n w ould be fu n d a m e n ta lly a lte re d .
P r e s u m a b ly we w ould be j u s t a s a b le to c o n s tr u c t a lte rn a tiv e f o r m a li
z a tio n s o f th e n ew d a ta a s we w e re of th e old .
W hat I h av e tr ie d to a rg u e th u s f a r is (a) th a t t h e r e is no c o m
p e llin g r e a s o n to a c c e p t e ith e r th e c e n tr a lity of sy n ta x o r , in d e p e n
d e n tly , th e le v e l of ST DS; (b) th a t t h e r e a r e r e a s o n s why i t w ould be
d e s ir a b le to in c o r p o r a te a m o d el o f c o m p e te n c e (m o re o r l e s s in th e
C h o m sk ia n s e n se ) in to a p ro d u c tio n m o d e l, o r , to u se S lo b in 's (1971)
te r m , a m o d e l of p s y c h o lin g u is tic c o m p e te n c e ; (c) th a t t h e r e is r e a s o n
to b e lie v e th a t a s y n ta x - c e n tr a l m o d e l is in a d e q u a te e v e n a s p a r t of a
m o d e l of p s y c h o lin g u is tic c o m p e te n c e , fo r in o r d e r to u s e su c h a
m o d e l a s p a r t of a p ro d u c tio n m o d e l we w ould h a v e to ad d c e r ta in r u le s
to th e l a t t e r , and th e s e r u le s w ould m a k e th e p r o c e s s of d e riv in g th e
m e a n in g s of s e n te n c e s th ro u g h p u r e ly i n te r p r e tiv e p r o c e s s e s c o m
p le te ly re d u n d a n t, th u s u n n e c e s s a r ily c o m p lic a tin g o u r g r a m m a r . Of
c o u rs e , th e a rg u m e n ts a g a in s t s y n ta x - c e n tr a lity a p p ly a s w e ll to
C h o m s k y 's ow n d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e S T , th e R S T . It h a s n o t b e e n m ad e
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
43
c le a r th u s f a r th a t h is R S T DS is s u b je c t to an y of th e f a u lts of th e ST
DS. H o w e v e r, i t is .
R e v is e d S ta n d a rd T h e o ry
D eep S tru c tu re
In th e R S T , DS is no lo n g e r a le v e l w h ich c o m p le te ly d e t e r
m in e s m e a n in g . W h e re a s in th e old v iew tw o i d e n tic a lD S 's n e c e s s a r ily
o c c a s io n e d tw o id e n tic a l s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , in th e new view th is
is no lo n g e r so; a sin g le DS m a y give r i s e u ltim a te ly to s e v e r a l d i s
tin c t s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , d e p e n d in g on w h at s y n ta c tic r u le s and
s i r 's ap p ly to th e d e e p and d e riv e d s tr u c tu r e s . T h u s, it c a n no lo n g e r
be c la im e d th a t th e le v e l of DS r e p r e s e n ts in an y d ir e c t fa s h io n an y of
th e s e m a n tic in tu itio n s o n ce c ite d a s its ju s tif ic a tio n . H o w e v e r, sin c e
we h a v e a lr e a d y s e e n th a t su c h c la im s w e re s p e c io u s to b eg in w ith ,
th is ch an g e c a n n o t be a c r i t ic i s m of th e R S T DS. In o r d e r to c r itic iz e
R S T DS it is n e c e s s a r y to se e w h at it su p p o sed to do.
B a s ic a lly , i ts fu n c tio n s a re tw o: (1) it i s th e f i r s t r e p r e s e n ta
tio n of a ll th e m e a n in g fu l e le m e n ts th a t w ill a p p e a r , in so m e fo rm , in
s u rfa c e s tr u c tu r e ;^ (2) it is th e s ta r tin g p o in t f o r th e e x p lic it s ta t e
m e n t of s y n ta c tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s . B oth (1) an d (2) c o u ld be sa id of ST
DS a s w e ll, b u t of c o u rs e m u ch m o re c o u ld be s a id of ST DS. Ite m (1)
is n e c e s s a r il y tr u e a s a c o m m e n t a b o u t a le v e l of r e p r e s e n ta tio n th a t
c o m p le te ly d e te r m in e s m e a n in g , a le v e l th a t is o p e ra te d on so le ly by
p u re ly i n te r p r e tiv e r u le s . T h u s (1) is n o t a v e ry i n te r e s tin g s ta te m e n t
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
4 4
ab o u t ST DS, b u t i t is v e ry i n te r e s tin g a s a s ta te m e n t a b o u t R ST DS.
W hile it s e e m s q u ite p la u s ib le and e v e n n e c e s s a r y to c la im th a t a ll th e
m e a n in g fu l e le m e n ts of a s e n te n c e m u s t b e p r e s e n t in so m e f o rm a t th e
le v e l w h ich c o m p le te ly d e te r m in e s m e a n in g , it is n o t a t a ll obv io u s
th a t su c h e le m e n ts sh o u ld be p r e s e n t a t a le v e l of r e p r e s e n ta tio n w hich
b e a r s no c o m p le te ly d e te rm in in g r e la tio n to th e m e a n in g of th e sen ten ce
(o r s e n te n c e s) w hich w ill be d e riv e d f ro m it. Ite m (2) co u ld be sa id
ab o u t an y v e rs io n of DS w hich p ro v id e d th a t th is le v e l is th e in p u t to a
su b c o m p o n e n t of sy n ta c tic r u le s . It s e e m s to be a r a t h e r u n in te re s tin g
s ta te m e n t b e c a u s e of th a t, and one m ig h t w o n d e r why it h a s b e e n e l e
v a te d to su c h im p o rta n c e in th e R S T .^ A fte r a ll, m o s t s y n ta c tic r u le s
w ill a p p ly n o t to DS, b u t to so m e d e riv e d s tr u c tu r e . The fe w e r the
r u le s w h ich d e m a n d a p a r tic u la r le v e l of s tr u c tu r e , th e l e s s s u p p o rt
th a t le v e l h a s . C e rta in ly it is tru e th a t s o m e th in g m u s t p ro v id e an
in p u t to th e s y n ta c tic r u le s , b u t th a t th is s o m e th in g sh o u ld be c o n s ti
tu te d by a c o lle c tio n of m ea n in g fu l e le m e n ts is n o t a t a ll o b v io u s. It
a p p e a r s th a t an y one of a n u m b e r of d iff e re n t c o n c e p tio n s of DS w ould
fu lfill th e fu n c tio n of (2). M o re o v e r, if th is le v e l is to be in e ffe c t
d e fin e d by th e s y n ta c tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s c a p tu r e d by th e g r a m m a r , it
is o b v io u s th a t o u r p rim e c o n c e rn sh o u ld be to sp e c ify th e c r i t e r i a upon
w h ich we d e c id e th a t s o m e th in g is o r is n o t a v a lid s y n ta c tic g e n e r a li
z a tio n .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
45
The c ru c ia l argum ent ag ain st RST DS involves testa b ility . It
is re la tiv e ly e a sy to find out w hether s p e ak e rs of a language reg a rd
two d istin c t su rface sentences as being (cognitively) synonym ous, fo r
exam ple. That is , it is rela tiv e ly e a sy to te s t c e rta in intuitions about
m eanings. On the o th er hand, a t p re s e n t it se em s im p o ssib le to im a g
ine any m eans of testin g w hether th e re is a psychologically re a l lev el
at w hich sp e ak e rs have gathered to g eth e r all the m eaningful elem en ts
th at w ill ap p ear in a forthcom ing sentence. W hile it does seem p o s
sible to te s t c e rta in p eo p le's (i. e. , lin g u ists') in tuitions about what is a
valid syntactic g e n eralizatio n , th e re a re still two unsolved testa b ility
p ro b lem s: (a) the fac t th at m o st people do not have such intuitions
su g g ests th at the intuitions th em selv es m ay in fac t be lea rn e d in the
p ro c e s s of acq u irin g o r fo rm ulating the th eo ry which they a re sup
posed to te st; (b) even if th ere w ere com plete ag reem en t about the
v alid ity of som e putative syntactic g e n eralizatio n , the shape of DS
depends on how the g en eralizatio n is fo rm u lated , and since co n sisten t
intu itio n s concerning th is problem cannot be d em o n strated , it rem a in s
to be seen w hether the lev el dem anded by syntactic g en eralizatio n s is
the sam e a s , o r d iffe re n t fro m , the lev el dem anded by co n sid eratio n s :
; about m eaning. Even if th is la tte r p ro b lem could be shown to be so lv
ab le, the RST notion of DS would s till be u n testab le, since it involves
both (1) and (2), and (1) is unte stable in itse lf.^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
It a p p e ars, then, th at if we a re concerned with the psychologi
cally re a l g ram m ar, the shift fro m ST DS to RST DS is u n d esirab le for
the v ery im p o rtan t re a so n that it red u ces the am ount of evidence that
is , in p rin cip le, av ailab le to us fo r the purpose of testin g our theory.
C ontext
A final c h a ra c te ristic of both the ST and the RST th at I will
c ritic iz e h ere is the p rac tic e of gen eratin g sen ten ces out of context.
In both th e o rie s , it is assu m ed that th e re is som e valid m eans of se p
a ra tin g knowledge of a language fro m knowledge of how to use a la n
guage. It is assu m ed also th at th is knowledge of a language is ap p ro
p ria tely specified in te rm s of the sentence ra th e r than, say, in te rm s
of the d isc o u rse o r som e unit which fo rm s a p a rt of sen ten ces.
The arg u m en ts ag ain st taking a p a rt o r p a rts of a sentence as
the b asic unit of co n cern a re w ell-know n, sim p le, and obviously c o r
re c t. A ll th at need be noted is th at sentence frag m en ts can be d e scrib ed
conveniently in te rm s of full sen ten ces, but full sen ten ces cannot be
d e scrib ed conveniently in te rm s of sentence fra g m en ts. M o reo v er,
actu al u tte ran c e s th at lac k the co m p leten ess of full sen ten ces convey
m eanings which could be conveyed by full sen ten ces. F o r exam ple,
n e ith e r th eo ry provides a d ire c t rep re se n ta tio n of (5), though it m ay
v ery w ell co nstitute a whole u tte ran c e .
(5) In the garden.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
................................................................................................................................. 47 :
L e t u s sa y th a t an u tte r a n c e is 's u c c e s s f u l' if i t c o n v e y s a n in te n d e d
m ecining. Now , on an y o c c a s io n on w h ich (5) is s u c c e s s fu l a s a r e a l
u tte r a n c e , th e m e a n in g it c o n v e y s c o u ld b e d e s c r ib e d in t e r m s of a
c o m p le te s e n te n c e , e . g . , (6).
(6) Jo h n is in th e g a rd e n .
T h e r e f o r e , p r a c titio n e r s o f th e th e o r ie s in q u e stio n fe e l th a t th e l in
g u is t's ta s k is to s p e c ify o n ly th a t kn o w led g e w hich w ould b e n e c e s s a r y
to a c c o u n t fo r fu ll s e n te n c e s .
T he a rg u m e n ts a g a in s t ta k in g so m e u n it l a r g e r th a n th e s e n
te n c e a s th e th e o r e tic a l p r im itiv e a r e m u c h w e a k e r. S p e a k e rs of
n a tu r a l lan g u a g e s o b v io u sly know a g r e a t d e a l ab o u t th e w a y s in w h ich
d iff e re n t c o m p le te s e n te n c e s m a y be r e la te d to e a ch o th e r in d is c o u r s e .
The c o r r e c t u s e , in E n g lis h , of th e d e fin ite and in d e fin ite a r t i c l e s
o fte n d e p e n d s on th e v e rb a l c o n te x t. It c a n be d e m o n s tra te d q u ite
e a s ily th a t n a tiv e s p e a k e r s of E n g lis h know w hen (5) w ould be a n a p p r o
p r ia te u tte r a n c e and w hen it w ould b e in a p p r o p r ia te , d e p e n d in g on c o n
te x t. It c a n j u s t a s e a s ily be d e m o n s tra te d th a t th e s e s p e a k e r s know
w h a t c o n s titu te s an a p p ro p r ia te r e s p o n s e and a p p ro p ria te c h a lle n g e to
a q u e s tio n o r s ta te m e n t.
T h e re a r e , of c o u r s e , a t l e a s t tw o th in g s w hich c a n be done
w ith k n ow ledge of th e s e ty p e s . On th e one h a n d , it co u ld be s a id th a t
th e s e a r e e x a m p le s of k n o w led g e of how to u s e th e la n g u a g e , and
t h e r e f o r e a p a r t of p e rf o r m a n c e r a t h e r th a n c o m p e te n c e . If, h o w e v e r.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
48
c o m p e te n ce is a s y s te m of k n o w led g e w h ich u n d e rlie s r e a l s p e e c h , it
is n o t a t a ll o b v io u s th a t th is d is tin c tio n C c in o r sh o u ld be m a in ta in e d ,
fo r th e c o n s is te n c y w h ic h s p e a k e r s of E n g lis h d is p la y in m a k in g ju d g
m e n ts ab o u t th in g s lik e th o se m e n tio n e d above is su c h th a t we m u s t
a d m it of a v e ry w id e ly s h a re d s y s te m of k now ledge u n d e rly in g th e
ju d g m e n ts. A t an y r a t e sim p ly d e c la r in g c e r ta in ty p e s of in tu itiv e
ju d g m e n ts a s bey o n d th e bo u n d s of g r a m m a r is e x tr e m e ly a r ti f i c ia l
an d u n s c ie n tific . We w o u ld , a t th e v e ry le a s t , be o b lig e d to show th a t
th e r e is so m e r e a s o n w hy we sh o u ld give in tu itio n s a b o u t s e n te n c e s
p riv ile g e d s ta tu s , w h ile ig n o rin g in tu itio n s a b o u t how s e n te n c e s c a n be
r e la te d to e a c h o th e r in d is c o u r s e . If th e b o u n d a rie s of lin g u is tic s a re
s e t by a p r io r i a rg u m e n ts and a s s u m p tio n s , th e n lin g u is tic s is n o t an '
e m p ir ic a l fie ld .
O n th e o th e r h a n d , it co u ld be c la im e d th a t d is c o u r s e s c a n be
v iew ed a s n o th in g m o re th a n c o m p le x s e n te n c e s . S ince g r a m m a r m u s t
ac c o u n t fo r s e n te n c e s c o n ta in in g c o o rd in a te s tr u c tu r e s a n y w a y , a ll we
n e e d do is tr a n s f o r m d is c o u r s e s in to c o m p le x s e n te n c e s c o n ta in in g th e
in d iv id u a l c o m p le te s e n te n c e s a s c o o rd in a te s tr u c tu r e s (se e K atz and
F o d o r , 1964, pp. 4 9 0 -4 9 1 ). In th is v/ay, in te r se n te n c e g e n e ra liz a tio n s
a r e re d u c e d to in tr a s e n te n c e g e n e ra liz a tio n s , and h e n c e , th e y a re
w ith in th e sco p e o f g r a m m a r .
T h is a p p ro a c h , th o u g h it c e rta in ly is m o re a p p e a lin g th a n th e
o th e r , is n o n e th e le s s f ra u g h t w ith d iffic u ltie s . F o r one th in g , th e
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
49
s ta te m e n t of c e r ta in a p p a re n tly v a lid g e n e ra liz a tio n s c ru c ia lly in v o lv e s
th e n o tio n s of s p e a k e r and a d d r e s s e e , b u t if we s im p ly c o n jo in a ll s e n
te n c e s of a d is c o u r s e we w ill h av e no m e a n s of in d ic a tin g c h a n g e s in
s p e a k e r - a d d re s s e e r o le s . T h is a p p ro a c h , m o r e o v e r , s e e m s to re d u c e
th e n o tio n o f s e n te n c e - a s - p r im itiv e to u tte r v a c u ity ; a ll c o m p le x s e n
te n c e s w h ich r e p r e s e n t d i s c o u r s e s w ill be s in g le lan g u a g e u n its w h ich ,
w h e n a c tu a lly p ro d u c e d , in v o lv e m o re th a n one u t te r e r . T h is g iv es
r i s e to so m e r a t h e r fu n d a m e n ta l d is tin c tio n s b e tw e en d i s c o u r s e -
c o m p le x s e n te n c e s and n o r m a l c o m p le x s e n te n c e s a s th e y m ig h t be
u tte r e d by a s in g le s p e a k e r - - th e g e n e ra liz a tio n s r e la tin g th e c o n ju n c ts
w ill be d iff e re n t in th e two c a s e s , and it d o e s n o t a p p e a r th a t we h a v e
any w ay of re c o g n iz in g fo rm a lly th e tw o c la s s e s of g e n e ra liz a tio n s .
T he o b v io u s th in g to do, of c o u r s e , w ould b e to b u ild th e n o tio n s
of s p e a k e r and a d d re s s e e u n a m b ig u o u sly in to o u r r e p r e s e n ta tio n s of
s e n te n c e s . T h is w ould allo w u s to s ta te a sin g le s e t of g e n e ra liz a tio n s
r e la tin g s e n te n c e s in d is c o u r s e s , w h ich s e t w ill d iffe r f o rm a lly f ro m
tiie s e t of g e n e ra liz a tio n s r e la tin g th e c o m p o n e n ts of a sin g le c o m p le x
se n te n c e , in th e u s e of s p e a k e r and a d d re s s e e id e n tify , a t l e a s t.
B u ild in g su c h in fo rm a tio n in to th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o f s e n te n c e s
i s , s tr i c t l y s p e a k in g , bey o n d th e p a le of tr a d itio n a l g e n e ra tiv e g r a m
m a r , b e c a u s e i t is no lo n g e r th e s e n te n c e a s su c h th a t is th e o b je c t of
in v e s tig a tio n , b u t r a t h e r th e u s e of th e s e n te n c e . The n ew in fo rm a tio n
a d m itte d h e re i s in fo rm a tio n a b o u t a p a r t of th e c o n te x t of s e n te n c e s , a
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
50
p a rt we could c a ll p a rticip an t context, since it r e f e r s p re c is e ly to the
individuals who would co nstitute the p a rticip a n ts in an instance of the
actual u se of the sentence(s) in question. T rad itio n al gen erativ e g ra m
m a r does not adm it of such contextual in fo rm atio n , nor does it adm it
of any o th er type of contextual inform ation.
I would like to give h e re ju st a single exam ple of the need for
recognizing p a rticip a n t context in g ram m ar. C o n sid er the following
dialog.
A: I should be ric h .
B: _I should be ric h ! (underlined w ord is h e a v y -stre sse d )
The placem en t of the heavy s tre s s in B 's sentence is com pletely p r e
dictab le, as it is in sen ten ces (7) and (8).
(7) John laughed, and (then) H a rry laughed (too).
(8) John should be ric h , and H a rry should be ric h (too).
Sentences (7) and (8) a re com plex sen ten ces, and the generalizatio n
th at accounts fo r the o c c u rre n c e of the h e a v ie st s tr e s s on the subject
of the second conjuncts (ra th er than on the p red ic a te , as we should
expect acco rd in g to ru le s given by Chom sky and H alle (1968) and r e
ite ra te d in C hom sky( 1969)) w ill re la te the individual sen ten tial com po
nents of the la r g e r, com plex sentence. That is , the g e n eralizatio n will
tell you th at, if you have a com plex sentence with any num ber of co n
jun cts of the fo rm X -v erb (+ ten se)-Y , and the conjuncts a re m o rp h em i-
ically id en tical except fo r the fille rs of X, then the X of e v ery conjunct
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
except the f ir s t m u st have the h e a v ie st s tr e s s in its S (the X of the f ir s t
conjunct is optionally also the h e a v ie s t-s tre s se d elem en t in its S).
Though th is g e n eralizatio n is som ew hat of an o v ersim p lificatio n , it
g ets the job done fo r sen ten ces like (7) and (8).
Suppose now th at we w ish to account, within the confines of a
tra d itio n a l g en erativ e g ram m ar, fo r the p red ic ta b le h e a v ie st s tre s s in
B 's sentence. The f ir s t step is to link A 's and B 's sen ten ces to g eth er,
producing (9).
(9) I should be ric h , a n d ^ should be ric h .
U nfortunately, we get a sentence th at is quite im p o ssib le as the product
of a single sp eak er. M o reo v er, the g e n e ra liz a tio n we fo rm u lated to
handle h e a v ie st s tr e s s e s in (7) and (8) does not w ork fo r (9) (nor would
a m o re g en eral fo rm u latio n th at was not such an o v ersim p lificatio n , as
long a s the fo rm u latio n depended on m o rp h em ic iden tity ), since the
conjuncts do not differ m orphem ic ally in the fille r of X. They do,
how ever, d iffer with re s p e c t to the re fe re n ts of X in each conjunct.
Thus, we m ight suppose th at o u r o rig in al g e n eralizatio n was in c o rre c t
in co n cen tratin g on m orphem ic identity and d ifferen ce in stead of r e f e r
e n tia l identity and differen ce. We can te s t th is supposition with sen
ten c e s lik e (10) and (11).
(10) ?John^ laughed, and John^ laughed (too).
(11) *Spiro^ laughed, and Agnew^ laughed (too).
Sentence (11), w here we have the req u ired m orphem ic difference in X,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
i s c o m p le te ly u n a c c e p ta b le . Such a se n te n c e w ould n e v e r be u tte r e d
e x c e p t a s a jo k e , th e h u m o r of w h ic h , if a n y , w ould lie p r e c is e ly in th e |
f a c t t h a t it v io la te s c e r ta in u n s p e c ifie d r u le s of E n g lis h . On th e o th e r
h a n d , (10) s e e m s to p a r a lle l (9). T hough it is s o m e w h at d iffic u lt to
im a g in e a c o n te x t in w hich (10) co u ld b e u tte r e d s u c c e s s f u lly , it i s n o t
a s b ad a s (11). So we sh o u ld r e f o r m u la te o u r g e n e ra liz a tio n in su c h a
w ay th a t it m e n tio n s c ru c ia lly a r e f e r e n t ia l n o n id e n tity b e tw e en th e f il - !
i e r s of X . Now a ll we n e e d do is s p e c ify d iff e re n t r e f e r e n ts of theJE 's
in (9) to b rin g i t w ith in th e d o m ain of o u r re fo rm u la tio n .
B u t how c a n we a c c o u n t f o r th e a lr e a d y m e n tio n e d f a c t th a t (9)
i s im p o s s ib le a s a s in g le -s p e a k e r u tte r a n c e , e v e n if th e in te n d e d r e f
e r e n t s of_I a re d iff e re n t? T he a n s w e r is q u ite s im p le . W hat we m ig h t :
c a ll th e m e a n in g o f ^ is 'th e s p e a k e r '. H e n c e , t h e r e is no w ay a sin g le
s p e a k e r c o u ld u tte r (9) and s u c c e s s f u lly co n v ey an in te n d e d r e f e r e n tia l i
d iff e re n c e in th e t w o ^ 's .
A s e t of s e n te n c e s s im ila r to (7 )-( 11) c o u ld be d e v is e d to show
t h a t th e s a m e p ro b le m a r i s e s w ith th e p ro n o u n y o u , an d s im ila r a r g u
m e n ts c o u ld be g iv en to show th a t th e s o lu tio n of th e p ro b le m r e s t s in
re c o g n iz in g th a t th e m e a n in g of you is 'th e a d d r e s s e e ( s ) ' (se e M cC aw ley,
1968). O nce we a d m it th e s e m e a n in g s of p e rs o n a l p ro n o u n s, we s im u l
ta n e o u s ly a d m it th e re le v a n c e of p a rtic ip e m t c o n te x t.
T h e re a r e , of c o u rs e , o th e r k in d s of c o n te x t w h ich co u ld c o n
c e iv a b ly be in v o lv e d in th e s ta te m e n t of v a lid lin g u istic g e n e ra liz a tio n s .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
,5 3
The a lr e a d y r e je c te d e x p e d ie n t o f s im p ly co n jo in in g s e n te n c e s of d i s
c o u r s e s to m a k e c o m p le x s e n te n c e s is no m o re th a n an a tte m p t to r e c
o g n ize th e in flu e n ce of v e rb a l c o n te x t on th e f o rm and c o n te n t of s e n
te n c e s . T he p h y s ic a l c o n te x t h a s a s im ila r e ffe c t. In g e n e ra l, a s p e c ts
of th e p h y s ic a l c o n te x t c a n be t r e a te d in th e sa m e w ay a s p r e v io u s ly
o c c u rr in g u tte r a n c e s . T h at i s , if so m e a s p e c t of th e p h y s ic a l c o n te x t
lis s u ffic ie n tly o b v io u s so th a t it m a y be p re s u m e d to h a v e b e e n n o tic e d
by a g ro u p of s p e a k e r s , th a t a s p e c t m ay be d is c u s s e d a s th o u g h it h ad
ia lre a d y b e e n r e f e r r e d to v e rb a lly . F o r e x a m p le , so m eo n e m ig h t
u t te r s e n te n c e (12) a s a d is c o u r s e - in itia l s ta te m e n t if th e d is c o u r s e
e n v iro n m e n t w as h o t, b u t n o t, c e t e r i s p a rib u s , if i t w as c o o l ( u n le s s
th e s e n te n c e w a s in te n d e d to be iro n ic ).
(12) The h e a t is u n b e a ra b le !
D e ic tic e le m e n ts in p a r tic u la r a r e an o b v io u s lin k b e tw e en a lan g u a g e
s y s te m an d th e p h y s ic a l c o n te x t in w h ich u tte re m c e s w ith in th a t s y s te m
o c c u r. In a g r a m m a r th a t s y s te m a tic a lly ig n o re s p h y s ic a l and p a r
tic ip a n t c o n te x t, little of i n te r e s t c a n be s a id a b o u t d e ic tic e le m e n ts .
E x p lic a tin g th e m e a n in g of t e r m s lik e t h i s , t h a t , h e r e , and th e r e r e
q u ire s lin k in g s p e a k e r s (p a r tic ip a n ts ) w ith p la c e s (p h y sic a l c o n te x t).
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
^ H e re in a fte r r e f e r r e d to a s L B , fo llo w ed by th e p e rtin e n t p age
n u m b e r, e. g ., (L B , p. 100).
^ T h is a s s u m p tio n is e x p lic it in K atz (1964, p. 80).
: 3
W hile th is m a y in f a c t be th e c a s e , th e c r u c ia l is s u e h e re is
th a t (a) p r e s u p p o s e s th a t it is th e c a s e and m a k e s th e o n ly e v id e n c e
w hich co u ld be r e le v a n t in re fu tin g (a) n ot a p a r t of lin g u is tic s . T h u s,
(a) i s , fro m th e lin g u is t's v iew p o in t a t le a s t, an a s s u m p tio n th a t is
u n te sta b le in p r in c ip le .
^ C h o m sk y (1 9 6 5 , p. 123): "T h e r u le s of th e c a te go r ia l c o m p o
n e n t c a r r y o u t tw o q u ite s e p a r a te fu n c tio n s: th e y d e fin e th e s y s te m of
g r a m m a tic a l r e la tio n s , and th e y d e te rm in e th e o r d e r in g of e le m e n ts in
d e e p s tr u c tu r e s ."
^In fa c t it is n o t c le a r th a t B e v e r 's r u le s r e q u ir e an y kind of
t r e e , c o m p le te o r in c o m p le te , n o r th a t an y th in g lik e th e tr a d itio n a l
n o tio n of s u rfa c e s tr u c tu r e is r e le v a n t fo r th e a p p lic a tio n of h is r u le s .
^ T h is a s s u m e s th a t e ith e r (a) s im p lic ity is n o t an is s u e , o r (b)
th e g r a m m a r s a r e c o m p a ra b ly s im p le . Since it is n o t im p o s s ib le , in
p r in c ip le , to h a v e s e v e r a l g r a m m a r s m e e t r e q u ir e m e n t (b), we c a n
a s s u m e th a t it h o ld s h e r e , and av o id a n a tta c k on th e p re s u m p tio n of
s im p lic ity . H o w e v e r, i t sh o u ld be n o ted th a t th e s im p lic ity c o n s id e r a
tio n in s c ie n c e in g e n e ra l h a s b e e n a tta c k e d a s a m e ta p h y s ic a l p r e
s u p p o sitio n (e. g. , B u n g e , 1963). We m u s t a t l e a s t b e o p e n to th e p o s
s ib ility , a p p a re n tly a n a s s u m e d f a c t to so m e (H o u s e h o ld e r, 1966), th a t
th e p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l g r a m m a r is n o t o p tim a lly s im p le . T h e re is a t
p r e s e n t no e x p e rim e n ta l e v id e n c e th a t r e a l g r a m m a r s a r e o p tim a lly
s im p le , n o r d o e s th is s e e m , a t p r e s e n t, to be an e m p ir ic a l is s u e .
^ It is v e ry d iffic u lt to p in dow n th e R S T . T he p o s itio n r e p r e
s e n te d h e re is o n ly o n e f o rm of a th e o ry th a t h a s , lik e a ll lin g u is tic
th e o r ie s , a p p e a re d in m a n y f o rm s in th e ta lk s and w r itin g s of v a rio u s
lin g u is ts . B r e s n a n (19 7 0 ), w o rk in g w ith a so m e w h at d iff e re n t v e rs io n
of th is th e o r y , is a p p a re n tly c o n te n t to lea v e c e r ta in m e a n in g fu l e l e
m e n ts o u t of DS, p ro v id e d th a t th e in s e r tio n of th e s e e le m e n ts c a n be
p re d ic te d by g e n e ra l r u le s .
^ T h a t it h a s i s , I th in k , c le a r fro m Ja c k e n d o ff (1 9 7 2 , C h a p te r
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
se n te d by th e v iew s I h a v e m e n tio n e d h e r e o r by B r e s n a n 's v iew s. It
is ju s t a s u n te s ta b le to c la im th a t th e r e is a p s y c h o lo g ic a lly r e a l le v e l
a t w h ich in d iv id u a ls h a v e g a th e re d to g e th e r a ll th e n o n p re d ic ta b le
; m ea n in g fu l e le m e n ts of a s e n te n c e th e y a r e a b o u t to u tte r a s it is to
m ak e th e s a m e c la im le a v in g o u t " n o n p re d ic ta b le ."
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
C H A P T E R n
R E Q U E S T S AND ST A T E M E N T S:
A SEM A NTIC C O N ST RA IN T
In tro d u c tio n
; Now le t u s c o n s id e r so m e d a ta in th e lig h t o f p o s itio n s a rg u e d
f o r and a g a in s t in th e p re c e d in g c h a p te r .
In th is c h a p te r , I w ill p r e s e n t a p a r t i a l tax o n o m y of q u e s tio n s
and s ta te m e n ts b a s e d on th e in fo rm a tio n su c h q u e s tio n s an d s ta te m e n ts
c a n c o n v ey .
I w ill d e m o n s tra te a c e r ta in p a r a lle l b e tw e e n q u e s tio n s and
s ta te m e n ts , and show th a t th is p a ra lle l is th e r e s u l t of a g e n e ra l
s e m a n tic p r in c ip le . I w ill show , f u r th e r m o r e , th a t th e fu n ctio n in g of
th is s e m a n tic p r in c ip le in flu e n c e s th e s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n of c e r
ta in q u e s tio n s and s ta te m e n ts , and is in flu e n c e d by c o n te x tu a l f e a tu re s .
T h is e s ta b lis h e s a lin k b e tw e en g r a m m a r and c o n te x t w h ic h , it h a s
b e e n a rg u e d , is b ey o n d th e sco p e of tr a d itio n a l g e n e ra tiv e g r a m m a r .
T e s t Q u e stio n s
M o st q u e s tio n s f a ll in to one of tw o c a te g o r ie s : (a) r e q u e s ts to
p e rf o r m so m e lin g u is tic a c t o r its e q u iv a le n t o nly; an d (b) r e q u e s ts to
56
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
57
p e rf o r m so m e n o n lin g u istic a c t, p e rh a p s in a d d itio n to a lin g u is tic a c t.
The ty p e s a re e x e m p lifie d b elo w .
(1) a. W hat tim e is i t ?
b. I t 's a b e a u tifu l d a y , i s n 't i t?
c. W ould you lik e to sw in g on a s ta r ?
(2) a. W ill you p le a s e p a s s th e s a lt ?
b. C an you ta k e o u t th e g a rb a g e ?
c. W ould you b e w illin g to w a sh th e d is h e s ?
T he q u e s tio n s of (1) s e e k a v e rb a l r e s p o n s e , o r a g e s tu r a l
e q u iv a le n t to a v e rb a l r e s p o n s e . T h at i s , th e a s k e r of ( la ) in te n d s th a t
h is a d d re s s e e t e ll h im th e tim e . If th e a d d re s s e e d o es n o t know th e
tim e , he c a n co n v ey th is f a c t to th e a s k e r by te llin g it to h im o r p e r
h a p s by sh ru g g in g h is s h o u ld e r s , w h ic h w ou ld , in th is c a s e , be e q u iv a
le n t to th e v e rb a l re s p o n s e I d o n 't k n o w .
G o rd o n and L ak o ff (19 7 1 ), in t h e i r d is c u s s io n of c o n v e rs a tio n a l
p o s tu la te s , show why q u e s tio n s lik e th o se in (2) a r e g e n e ra lly r e q u e s ts
to p e rf o r m a n o n lin g u istic a c t e v e n th o u g h th e y h av e th e a p p e a ra n c e of
s im p le y e s /n o q u e s tio n s . Of c o u r s e a c e r ta in ra n g e of v e rb a l r e
s p o n s e s to th e q u e s tio n s of (2) a r e a ls o a p p ro p r ia te , e .g . , y e s , n o ,
I d o n 't know if I c a n . The f a c t r e m a in s th a t w hat th e a s k e r is r e q u e s t
in g (n o rm a lly ) is th e p e rf o r m a n c e of th e n o n lin g u istic a c t. T h u s (Ic )
an d (2 c), th o u g h th e y m ay a p p e a r s u p e rf ic ia lly th e s a m e , a r e r e a l ly
d iff e re n t in e x a c tly th e w ay d e s c r ib e d , sin c e (2c) c a n be (eind no d o u b t
g e n e ra lly is ) a r e q u e s t to w a sh th e d is h e s , w h ile (Ic ) is n o t a r e q u e s t
to sw in g on a s t a r , b u t r a t h e r a r e q u e s t to su p p ly c e r ta in in fo rm a tio n
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
58
a b o u t th e a d d r e s s e e 's a m b itio n s .
I w ill c a ll q u e s tio n s of th e ty p e found in (1) R e q u e s ts f o r I n fo r
m a tio n , and q u e s tio n s o f th e ty p e e x e m p lifie d by (2) R e q u e s ts f o r
A c tio n . T h e se a r e n o n a r b itr a r y n a m e s f o r th e r e le v a n t c a te g o r ie s .
A ll th e q u e s tio n s in (1) r e q u e s t so m e in fo rm a tio n , e v e n ( lb ) , w h ich
w ould n o t be c o n s id e re d a n excim ple of a n 'in f o rm a tio n a l q u e s tio n ' a s
th a t t e r m h a s b e e n u s e d (e. g. , by He r in g e r , 1971). In th e c a s e of (lb ),
th e in fo rm a tio n re q u e s te d is w h e th e r th e a d d re s s e e c o n c u rs in th e i n
t e r r o g a t o r 's e x p re s s e d a e s th e tic ju d g m e n t a b o u t th e d ay . O th e r ta g
q u e s tio n s , e . g . , (3) b e lo w , c a n co n v ey r e q u e s ts f o r a c tio n .
(3) Y o u 'll ta k e o u t th e g a rb a g e , w o n 't you?
The q u e s tio n s of (2) c a n be in te r p r e te d a s r e q u e s ts f o r in fo rm a tio n ,
and in c e r ta in c o n te x ts th is in te r p r e ta tio n w ould no do u b t be th e c o r r e c t
on e. By th e s a m e to k en , th e q u e s tio n s of (1) c o u ld c o n s titu te , in s u f
fic ie n tly b iz a r r e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , r e q u e s ts to p e rf o r m so m e s p e c ific
n o n lin g u istic a c t. H o w e v e r, e v e n in th is c a s e th e r e q u e s t i s u n fu lfille d
u n til th e a d d re s s e e p a s s e s on th e v e rb a l a n s w e r (o r its e q u iv a le n t) to
th e q u e s tio n e r. In m o s t c a s e s th e n , c o n te x t w ill e x e r t a d e te rm in in g
in flu e n ce on w h e th e r a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s tio n is u n d e rs to o d a s a r e q u e s t
fo r in fo rm a tio n o r a r e q u e s t f o r a c tio n . The s a m p le q u e s tio n s in (1)
and (2) a r e g e n e ra lly e x a m p le s of th e two q u e s tio n ty p e s , an d I t r u s t
th e d is tin c tio n is m o re o r l e s s c le a r on in tu itiv e g ro u n d s.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
59 :
The r e m a in d e r of th is s e c tio n is c o n c e rn e d w ith r e q u e s ts f o r i n
fo rm a tio n o n ly , and c e r ta in e ffe c ts of c o n te x t on s e n te n c e s o f th is ty p e .
W hen a s p e a k e r s u c c e s s fu lly u t te r s a r e q u e s t fo r in fo rm a tio n ,
h is a d d re s s e e b e c o m e s a w a re of a n u m b e r of f a c ts : f i r s t , th a t th e
s p e a k e r h a s in f a c t m ad e a r e q u e s t; se c o n d , th a t h e , th e a d d r e s s e e ,
is th e in te n d e d r e c ip ie n t of th e re q u e s t; th ir d , th a t an a p p ro p r ia te r e
sp o n se w ould be to t e ll th e s p e a k e r so m e th in g ; fo u rth , th a t so m e p a r
tic u la r p ie c e of in fo rm a tio n is b e in g so u g h t. A fo rm u la tio n of th e s e
f a c ts is g iv en in (4) b elow .
(4) R E Q U E S T (a,b , T E L L (b , a , Q)) ^
a r e q u e s ts of b th a t b t e l l a Q (w h ere a = s p e a k e r and
b = a d d re s s e e )
T h u s, if D ick s a y s (5) to S p iro , D ic k w ill be a , S p iro b, and (fo llo w in g
a w e ll-k n o w n a n a ly s is of y e s /n o q u e s tio n s ) Q w ill r e p r e s e n t th e q u e s
tio n w h e th e r H e n ry w en t o u t f o r th e c h e e s e b lin tz e s o r n o t.
(5) H as H e n ry gone o u t f o r th e c h e e s e b lin tz e s ?
T h e fo u r f a c ts w h ich (4) r e p r e s e n ts a r e n o t n e c e s s a r il y a ll th e
f a c ts th a t th e s p e a k e r c o n v e y s to h is a d d r e s s e e , b u t th e y a r e a m in im a l
s e t to e n s u re th a t th e q u e s tio n w ill be s u c c e s s f u l a s a r e q u e s t fo r in f o r
m a tio n . If it is n o t c le a r who th e a d d re s s e e i s , th e r e m a y be no r e
sp o n se to th e q u e stio n ; if it is n o t c le a r w h e th e r th e a d d re s s e e is to
p e rf o r m a lin g u is tic o r n o n lin g u istic a c t, o r if it is n o t c le a r w h at
in fo rm a tio n is b e in g so u g h t, th e a d d re s s e e m ay p ro d u c e a n i n a p p r o p r i
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
60
ate r e s p o n s e o r a s k f o r c la r if ic a tio n ; if th e in te r r o g a to r f a ils to co n v ey
h is id e n tity , h e m a y f a il to e lic it any r e s p o n s e , o r th e r e s p o n s e m ay
be d ire c te d a t a n o th e r p a rty .
; T he im p o r ta n t th in g to r e a liz e is th a t th is in fo rm a tio n is a lm o s t
alw a y s u n d e rd e te rm in e d by th e s u rfa c e f o rm of r e q u e s ts fo r in fo r m a
tio n . If one a d o p ts th e ST a p p ro a c h to s e m a n tic s , th a t i s , if one
a s s u m e s th a t th e m e a n in g of a s e n te n c e r e s u l ts f ro m p u ttin g to g e th e r
in a p p ro p r ia te w ay s th e in tr in s ic m e a n in g s o f i ts c o n s titu e n t m o r
p h e m e s , th e n a p ro b le m a r i s e s . T he f a c t th a t a r e q u e s t h a s b e e n m ad e
is in d ic a te d by th e p r e s e n c e of a w h -w o rd , by in to n a tio n a l p h e n o m e n a ,
by c h a n g e s in w o rd o r d e r , o r so m e c o m b in a tio n of th e s e f a c to r s . The
sp e c ific in fo rm a tio n re q u e s te d c a n be d e riv e d by in te r p r e tin g s e m a n
tic a lly (in th e ST fa sh io n ) th e q u e s tio n s e n te n c e . B ut n o th in g e x p lic it
in r e q u e s ts f o r in fo rm a tio n in d ic a te s e ith e r th e n a tu r e of a p p ro p ria te
r e s p o n s e s (th a t i s , te llin g , o r i ts e q u iv a le n t) o r th e f a c t th a t su ch
q u e s tio n s in v o lv e a t l e a s t a s p e a k e r cind a n a d d r e s s e e (and p e rh a p s
m o re th a n o n e ). Of c o u rs e , we co u ld d e c id e th a t su c h th in g s a r e not
a p a r t of th e m e a n in g of th e q u e s tio n , b u t th is d e c is io n w ould be
e n tir e ly a r b i t r a r y . S ince we c an n o t p ro v e th a t su c h th in g s a r e n o t a
p a r t of m e a n in g , and s in c e we c a n e s ta b lis h th a t th e y a r e c o n v e y ed by
r e a l r e q u e s t s , j u s t lik e th o se th in g s th a t we a ll a g re e a r e a p a r t of
m e a n in g , we m a y a s w e ll e x p lo re th e u tility of re c o g n iz in g th e m in
s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s . A t any r a t e , i t i s u n d e n ia b le th a t r e a l
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
61
s p e a k e r s h a v e a c c e s s to in fo rm a tio n of th is ty p e w hen th e y p ro d u ce and
i n te r p r e t a c tu a l r e q u e s ts .
W hat we h a v e d o n e, th e n , is to e s ta b lis h a s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n
ta tio n o n th e b a s is of w h at in fo rm a tio n is co n v e y ed by r e a l r e q u e s ts fo r
in fo r m a tio n . We h av e a ls o n o ted th a t so m e e le m e n ts of th is r e p r e s e n
ta tio n a r e n o t r e p r e s e n te d o v e rtly in s u rf a c e s tr u c tu r e s , n o r a r e th ey
! r e p r e s e n te d o v e rtly in th e ST o r R S T c o n c e p tio n s of DS. In e ffe c t,
w h a t we a r e c la im in g is th a t th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e en th e u n d e rly in g
! r e p r e s e n ta tio n of a s e n te n c e an d its s u rf a c e fo rm m a y be e v e n le s s
d i r e c t th a n it is in th e ST o r RST; th a t th e u n d e rly in g r e p r e s e n ta tio n
of a s e n te n c e c a n n o t be a r r iv e d a t by a rg u m e n ts in v o lv in g on ly s y n ta c
tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s and th e m ea n in g fu l e le m e n ts th a t w ill a p p e a r , in
so m e f o rm , on th e s u rf a c e .
A c e r ta in s m a ll n u m b e r of f a c ts a b o u t th e in te r r o g a to r a r e
r e le v a n t in d e te rm in in g e x a c tly w h at in fo r m a tio n w ill be c o m m u n ic a te d
to h im w h en h is q u e s tio n is a n s w e re d . N o rm a lly th is in fo rm a tio n is
c o n ta in e d in a l it e r a l s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n , à la S T , of th e re s p o n s e
u tte r a n c e o r u tte r a n c e s . B ut su p p o se th a t th e in te r r o g a to r a lre a d y
kn o w s th e a n s w e r to h is q u e s tio n . T h e n , if th e a n s w e r to h is q u e s tio n
lis e x p r e s s e d by so m e p ro p o sitio n Q, (6) b e lo w is tr u e .
(6) K N O W (a,Q )
a know s Q (w h ere a is th e i n te r r o g a to r )
The in fo rm a tio n c o m m u n ic a te d by an a n s w e r to th e q u e s tio n c a n n o t be
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
62
th e l it e r a l c o n te n t of th e a n s w e r, s in c e th is is a lr e a d y know n. W hat
c a n i t be th e n ? T h a t d e p e n d s on th e s p e a k e r 's a s s u m p tio n s ab o u t h is
a d d re s s e e .^
: Ig n o rin g , fo r th e m o m e n t a t l e a s t, any p ro b le m s th a t m ig h t
a r i s e c o n c e rn in g d e g re e s of b e lie f, we c a n sa y th a t th e s p e a k e r m ay
b e lie v e th a t h is a d d re s s e e know s th e a n s w e r, o r he m a y b e lie v e th a t
h is a d d re s s e e d o e s n o t know th e a n s w e r, o r he m a y h av e n e ith e r of
th e s e b e lie fs . T h e se p o s s ib ilitie s a r e r e p r e s e n te d a s (7 )-(9 ) b elo w .
(7) B E L IE V E (a , K N O W (b,Q ))
a b e lie v e s th a t b know s Q
(8) B E L IE V E (a , -K N O W (b,Q ))^
a b e lie v e s th a t b d o e s n o t know Q
(9) -(7 ) • -(8)
i. e . , a d o e s n o t know w h e th e r b know s Q
It i s a s s u m e d th a t o n e and o n ly one of (7 )-(9 ) m u s t be tr u e of a s p e a k e r
o n a g iv en o c c a s io n .
W hich of (7 )-(9 ) is tr u e of th e s p e a k e r w ill d e te r m in e w h at is
c o m m u n ic a te d to h im w hen h is q u e s tio n is a n s w e re d , b u t h a v in g one of
th e m be tr u e of an in d iv id u a l is n ot s u ffic ie n t to m ak e h im a s k a q u e s
tio n in th e f i r s t p la c e . N o rm a lly it is th e c a s e th a t th e s p e a k e r w a n ts
to h a v e th e in fo rm a tio n h is q u e s tio n is d e s ig n e d to e lic it. If th e a s k e r
d o e s n o t know w h e th e r h is a d d re s s e e know s th e a n s w e r ( i . e . , (9) is
tr u e ) , th e l a t t e r 's r e s p o n s e w ill co n v ey e ith e r th a t he d o e s o r d o e s n o t.
P r e s u m a b ly , if (6) an d (9) w e re tr u e of a s p e a k e r he w ould n o t a s k h is
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
63
q u e s tio n u n le s s he w a n te d to fin d o u t w h e th e r th e a d d r e s s e e k n ow s th e
a n s w e r. If th e a s k e r b e lie v e s th a t h is a d d re s s e e d o e s know th e a n s w e r
(w hich is r e p r e s e n te d by (7)), o r if he b e lie v e s th a t h is a d d re s s e e d o e s
n o t know th e a n s w e r (w h ich is (8)), th e s itu a tio n is so m e w h a t d iffe re n t.
The s p e a k e r h a s f o rm e d a h y p o th e s is a b o u t a p a r t i c u l a r in d iv id u a l and
an a n s w e r to h is q u e s tio n w ill s e rv e to c o n firm o r d is c o n f ir m th is
h y p o th e s is . A g a in , th e q u e s tio n w ould p ro b a b ly n o t b e a s k e d u n le s s ,
fo r so m e r e a s o n , th e s p e a k e r w an ted to t e s t h is h y p o th e s is .
The s itu a tio n s d is c u s s e d so f a r a r e a ll c a p a b le of e lic itin g
r e q u e s ts fo r in fo rm a tio n , th a t i s , q u e s tio n s w h o se s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n
ta tio n s a r e in s ta n c e s of (4). T he c la im s th a t h av e b e e n m a d e a r e s u m
m a r iz e d in F o r m u la e I -III b elo w .
I. K N O W (a,Q ) • B E L IE V E (a,K N O W (b ,Q )) • W A N T(a, KNOW (a,
(6) (7)
w h e th e r T R U E(K N O W (b, Q))))*-^a^ f o rm u la te s q u e s tio n
w ith s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n R E Q U E S T (a, b, T E L L (b , a , Q))^
n . K N O W (a,Q ) • B E L IE V E (a ,-K N O W (b ,Q )) • W A N T(a,K N O W
(6 ) (8)
(a, w h e th e r T R U E (-K N O W (b, Q)))) a f o rm u la te s q u e s tio n
w ith s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n R E Q U E S T (a , b , T E L L (b ,a ,Q ))
III. K N O W (a,Q ) • -K N O W (a, w h e th e r KNOW (b, Q)) " W ANT
(6) (9)
(a, KN O W (a, w h e th e r KNOW (b, Q )))* -” a f o rm u la te s q u e s tio n
w ith s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n R E Q U E S T (a, b, T E L L (b , a, Q))
A q u e s tio n lik e (10) w ill h av e th e s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n w hich
o c c u rs to th e r ig h t of th e a rr o w in th e c h a rt, w h ich is to s a y th a t th is
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
6 4
s in g le s u rf a c e q u e s tio n c a n be u s e d to e li c it th e t h r e e d iffe re n t ty p e s
of in fo r m a tio n r e p r e s e n te d in th e c h a rt.
(10) W hen d id C o lu m b u s d is c o v e r A m e ric a ?
The f i r s t c o n ju n c t, (6), in d ic a te s th ro u g h o u t th a t th e a s k e r know s th e
( li te r a l) a n s w e r to h is q u e s tio n -- in th is c a s e , h e know s th a t C o lu m b u s i
d is c o v e r e d A m e ric a in 1492. The s e co n d c o n ju n c t r e f le c ts h is b e lie fs
c o n c e rn in g th e a d d r e s s e e 's know ledge and c o n ta in s th e f a c ts n e c e s s a r y
to d e te r m in e w h at in fo rm a tio n w ill be c o n v e y ed w hen th e q u e s tio n is
I a n s w e re d . The th ir d c o n ju n c t m ig h t be c o n s id e r e d th e m o tiv a tio n a l
f a c to r fo r th e a s k in g of th e q u e stio n . It i s n o t a n a p r io r i c o n s id e r a
tio n , th o u g h it m ig h t s e e m to b e. T h is is show n by th e f a c t th a t r e
q u e s ts f o r in fo rm a tio n c a n be c h a lle n g e d w ith r e s p o n s e s of the ty p e
g iv en in (1 1 ), w h ich in d ic a te s th a t s p e a k e r s m u s t so m eh o w a s s o c ia te
the a s k in g of su c h q u e s tio n s w ith so m e p a r t i c u l a r d e s ir e on th e p a r t of i
th e a s k e r .
(11) W hy do you w an t to know
th a t?
w h en C o lu m b u s d is c o v e re d
A m e ric a ?
w h e th e r I know w hen C o lu m
b u s d is c o v e r e d A m e ric a ?
I an d II on th e c h a r t r e p r e s e n t q u e s tio n s th a t t e s t h y p o th e s e s
and III r e p r e s e n ts a n a tte m p t by th e in te r r o g a to r to fin d o u t w h e th e r
o r n o t th e a d d r e s s e e know s Q. S ince th e d iff e re n c e s in th e c h a rt a re
a ll a p p a re n tly n e u tr a liz e d in th e a c tu a l q u e s tio n , it w ould be a p p r o p r i
a te to w o n d e r w h e th e r th e d iffe re n c e s c a n be ju s tif ie d on th e b a s is of
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
65
lin g u is tic d a ta o th e r th a n (11). In o th e r w o rd s , do th e d iff e re n c e s in
th e c h a r t h a v e p r e d ic ta b le lin g u is tic c o n s e q u e n c e s ? T he a n s w e r to th is
iq u e s tio n i s , of c o u rs e , th a t th e y do.
! We c o u ld w o n d e r, f i r s t of a ll, w h e th e r (6) sh o u ld e v e n a p p e a r
on th e c h a r t. It h a s n o t b e e n show n to c o n tr a s t w ith a n y th in g e ls e th a t
c o u ld fill its p o s itio n , so to sp e a k , and its o n ly e ffe c t s e e m s to be to
d e te r m in e w h e th e r th e s p e a k e r is se e k in g kno w led g e of th e w o rld o r
kn o w led g e o f h is a d d r e s s e e , w h ich h a s n o t b e e n show n to h a v e any
; o b s e rv a b le c o n s e q u e n c e s of i ts ow n. H o w e v e r, th is d is tin c tio n b e tw e en
k n o w led g e of th e w o rld and k n o w led g e of th e a d d re s s e e h a s an im p o r
ta n t p r a c tic a l c o n s e q u e n c e . G iven a q u e s tio n lik e (10), if th e i n t e r r o
g a to r d o e s n o t know th e a n s w e r , th a t i s , if (6) d o e s n o t h o ld , it sh o u ld
n o t r e a lly m a tte r to h im who a n s w e r s h is q u e s tio n , sin c e w h at he is
se e k in g is kn o w led g e of th e w o rld . B u t if he d o e s know th e a n s w e r,
th a t i s , if (6) h o ld s, th e id e n tity of th e r e s p o n d e n t w ill be of p a ra m o u n t
im p o r ta n c e , sin c e th e in fo rm a tio n so u g h t is kno w led g e of th e a d d re s s e e .
L e t u s c a ll q u e s tio n s f o r w h ich (6) is tr u e T e s t Q u e s tio n s (T Q ),
s in c e th e y a r e m o s t c o m m o n ly u s e d to t e s t th e l i s t e n e r 's k n o w led g e.
T he n a tu r e of th e r e s p o n s e g iv en to a TQ w ill d ep en d in m an y
c a s e s on w h ich of (7 )-(9 ) th e a d d re s s e e a s s u m e s to be tr u e . C o n s id e r
th e c o n te x t of a c la s s ro o m . If a te a c h e r p u ts a q u e s tio n to a stu d e n t
an d th e l a t t e r a s s u m e s th a t (6) an d (9) a r e tru e of th e t e a c h e r , it is
u n lik e ly th a t he w ill v e rb a lly c h a lle n g e th e q u e s tio n e r. If h e a s s u m e s
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
66
th at (6) and (8) a re tru e , he m ay feel th at the q u estio n er is try in g to
m ake him ap p ear som ew hat stupid, and in th is c a se a challenge (e. g. ,
How should I know ? o r What a re you asking m e f o r ? ) is m uch m ore
likely and m ay be u tte re d even when the a d d re sse e knows the answ er.
If he a ssu m es th at (6) and (7) a re tru e , he m ay fe e l th at the in te r ro
g ator is try in g to m ake him look good, which m ay be ap p reciated by the
a d d re sse e but re se n te d by an audience. In th is c a se , the audience m ay
challenge the in te rro g a to r, p erhaps with an a s s e rtio n like You knew
;h e'd know the an sw er to th at one !, which does not actu ally challenge
the question, but ra th e r the e n tire p ro ced u re of asking T Q 's of type I.^
In a ll of th ese c a s e s , and o th ers w here (6) does not hold, the
c la ss of a p p ro p riate resp o n se s to the question in clu d es what m ight be
called a d ire c t an sw er to the question, in th is c ase som ething like
In 1492. How ever, (12) is an a p p ro p riate resp o n se only if (6) does
hold, and probably (9) a s w ell.
(12) I know y o u 're try in g to find out w hether I know when
Colum bus d isco v ered A m erica, so I 'll te ll you. I do.
He d isco v ered it in 1492.
A dm ittedly, the odds of actually enco u n terin g (12), o r anything
v ery m uch like it fo r th at m a tte r, a re ra th e r sm all. N onetheless,
native sp e ak e rs of E ng lish are capable of recognizing (12) a s a m em ber
of the set of ap p ro p riate resp o n se s to (10) when they a re p resen ted with
;it. The im p o rtan t p oints h e re a re th at the notions of ap p ro p riate
resp o n se and ap p ro p riate challenge can be, and p erh ap s m u st be.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
c h a r a c te r iz e d in t e r m s of a s s u m p tio n s lik e th o se r e p r e s e n te d by (7)-
(9), an d th a t an u n d e rs ta n d in g of s p e a k e r s ' r e a c tio n s in a c tu a l d i s
c o u rs e is g r e a tly f a c ilita te d by re c o g n iz in g th e lin g u is tic fu n ctio n of
su c h a s s u m p tio n s .
P r o p e r R e q u e s ts f o r In fo rm a tio n
Now le t u s c o n s id e r th e c a s e s in w h ich th e s p e a k e r d o e s n o t
h a v e p r io r k n o w led g e of th e a n s w e r to h is q u e s tio n , th a t i s , c a s e s in
w h ich (13) is tr u e .
(13) -K N O W (a,Q )
a d o e s n o t know Q
A s a lr e a d y m e n tio n e d , th e s p e a k e r 's in te n tio n w hen h e a s k s su ch a
q u e s tio n is to fin d o u t th e a n s w e r r a t h e r th a n to fin d o u t so m e th in g
ab o u t th e a d d r e s s e e . L e t u s c a ll su c h q u e s tio n s P r o p e r R e q u e s ts fo r
I n fo r m a tio n . A g a in , any one of (7 )-(9 ) m a y be tr u e in a d d itio n to (13),
b u t th e m o s t co m m o n situ a tio n is no d o u b t th a t in w h ich (13) and (7)
a r e tr u e . O b v io u sly th e b e s t w ay to fin d o u t th e a n s w e r to a q u e stio n
is to a s k so m e o n e who (you b e lie v e ) kn o w s th e a n s w e r. O th e r e v id e n c e
f o r th e s a m e p o in t c o n s is ts of th e f a c t th a t a s k in g so m e o n e a q u e s tio n
lik e (10) in v ite s th e in fe re n c e (G e is an d Z w ick y , 1971), th a t th e a s k e r
e x p e c ts h is a d d re s s e e to know th e a n s w e r . T h u s, q u e s tio n s w h e re
(13) an d (8) o r (13) and (9) h o ld o fte n h a v e s u rf a c e r e a liz a tio n s th a t
m a k e e x p lic it th e f a c t th a t th e in fe r e n c e is n o t to b e in v ite d . A (1 3 )-
a n d -(8 ) s u rf a c e q u e s tio n is g iv en a s (14), and a (1 3 )-a n d -(9 ) v e rs io n
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
6 8 :
of th e s a m e q u e s tio n is (15).
(14) Y ou w o u ld n 't h a p p e n to know W illie M a y s' b a ttin g
a v e ra g e , w ould y o u ?
(15) Do you know W illie M a y s' b a ttin g a v e ra g e ?
T he s tr a ig h tf o rw a r d (1 3 )-a n d -(7 ) q u e s tio n is (16).
(16) W h a t's W illie M a y s' b a ttin g a v e ra g e ?
N ote th a t th e f i r s t tw o v e rs io n s of th e q u e s tio n h av e a s y n ta c tic ,
f o rm w h ich m a k e s it a p p e a r th a t y e s o r no w ould b e e n tir e ly a p p r o p r i
a te a n s w e r s . T h e f a c t is th a t th e y w ould v e ry r a r e ly be in te r p r e te d
t h is w ay. W hen th e y a r e , th is in te r p r e ta tio n o fte n c o n s titu te s a c h a l
le n g e . T h a t i s , n o rm a lly th e y a r e so tr a n s p a r e n tly r e q u e s ts f o r W illie
M a y s' b a ttin g a v e ra g e th a t o n ly an u n c o o p e ra tiv e a d d re s s e e w ould i n
t e r p r e t th e m a s y e s /n o q u e s tio n s , and su c h an in te r p re ta tio n w ould be
s u ffic ie n tly b i z a r r e so th a t th e a s k e r w ould re c o g n iz e th a t h is a d d re s s e e
i s not c o o p e ra tin g .^
T h is c r e a t e s s o m e w h at of a p ro b le m fo r a s e m a n tic a p p ro a c h
I lik e th e one a lr e a d y c r itic iz e d in th is s tu d y - - th e a p p ro a c h w h ich
a s s u m e s th a t th e m ea n in g of a s e n te n c e is d e te rm in e d by th e m e a n in g s
of i ts c o n s titu e n t e le m e n ts . If we a d o p t th is a p p ro a c h , we c a n a c c o u n t
f o r th e l it e r a l in te r p r e ta tio n s of q u e s tio n s lik e (14) and (15), th e i n t e r
p r e ta tio n s w h ich r e q u ir e on ly a s im p le y e s o r no^ a s a n s w e r. B ut how
do we a c co u n t fo r th e in te r p r e ta tio n s th e s e q u e s tio n s g e n e ra lly r e c e iv e
in a c tu a l d is c o u r s e ?
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
....................................69 :
We c o u ld h av e a s e r i e s of s e m a n tic in te r p re tiv e r u le s th a t
w ould t e ll u s th a t p h r a s e s lik e do you know c a n be d is r e g a rd e d if a
'q u e stio n is em b e d d e d u n d e r one of th e m . T h is w ould m ak e th e r e l e
v an t q u e s tio n s a m b ig u o u s b u t w ould n o t t e ll u s e x c e p t in an ad hoc
fa s h io n w hy th e y a r e a m b ig u o u s, and it w ould n o t te ll u s a t a ll how
s p e a k e r s d isa m b ig u a te th e m .
If we w an t to know w hy q u e s tio n s lik e (14) and (15) a r e , t e c h
n ic a lly , a m b ig u o u s and how s p e a k e r s go a b o u t d isa m b ig u a tin g th e m ,
we n e e d to h a v e th e in v ite d in fe re n c e a t o u r d is p o s a l. T he r e a s o n fo r
th e h ig h e r q u e s tio n s is to u n in v ite th e in fe r e n c e , and th is is o b v io u s
f ro m a c o n s id e ra tio n of th e in tr in s ic m e a n in g of th e h ig h e r q u e s tio n s .
If a s k in g (16) w ould co n v ey (17), a d ir e c t w ay of n o t co n v ey in g (17) is
to c a ll it in to q u e stio n .
(17) I e x p e ct th a t you know w h a t W illie M a y s' b a ttin g a v e ra g e
i s . 7
By a sk in g (15), the s p e a k e r m a k e s e x p lic it a la c k of c o m m itm e n t ab o u t
w h e th e r h is a d d re s s e e d o e s o r d o e s n o t know th e a n s w e r to th e e m
b ed d ed q u e s tio n , th a t i s , he e x p lic itly c o n v e y s (9). By a s k in g (14), on
th e o th e r h a n d , he e x p lic itly c o n v e y s a s u p p o sitio n th a t h is a d d re s s e e
d o e s n o t know th e a n s w e r to th e e m b e d d e d q u e s tio n , th a t i s , he e x p lic
itly c o n v e y s (8).
T h u s, we w ill h av e to a c c o u n t f o r th e in v ite d in fe r e n c e r e g a r d
l e s s of o u r s e m a n tic s , b u t th e f a c t th a t th e in fe re n c e m a y e x e r t a
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
70
d e te rm in in g in flu e n c e on th e f o rm and c o n te n t of q u e s tio n s th a t do n o t
co n v ey th e in fe re n c e ( e . g . , (14) and (15)) m e a n s th a t we c a n n o t allo w
th e in fe re n c e to be a c c o u n te d f o r by a SIR w ith o u t lo sin g o u r e x p la n a tio n
fo r th e fa c ts we o b s e rv e a b o u t q u e s tio n s th a t do n o t in v ite in fe r e n c e s .
W hat h a s b e e n a rg u e d f o r th e n is th e fo llo w in g s e t of c o r r e la -
IV. a. -K N O W (a.Q ) • B E L IE V E (a,K N O W (b ,Q )) • W A N T(a,
(13) (7)
K N O W (a.Q ))*—
b. a f o rm u la te s a s tr a ig h tf o rw a r d q u e s tio n Q; Q in v ite s
th e in fe r e n c e (7).
V. a. -K N O W (a.Q ) • B E L IE V E (a,-K N O W (b , Q)) • W A N T (a,
(13) (8)
KN OW (a, Q))*—
b. a f o rm u la te s th e q u e s tio n Q , b u t ad d s so m e th in g
w h ich c o n v e y s an e x p e c ta tio n c o n tr a r y to (7), o r
e x p lic itly e x p r e s s e s (8), e .g . , You w o u ld n 't h a p p e n
to know Q, w ould y o u ? You p ro b a b ly d o n 't know th e
a n s w e r to th is q u e s tio n , b u t Q ?
VI. a. -K N O W (a,Q ) • -K N O W (a, w h e th e r KNOW (b, Q)) •
(13) (9)
W A N T (a, KN OW (a, Q))*—
b. ^ f o rm u la te s th e q u e s tio n Q, b u t ad d s so m e th in g
w h ich c a lls (7) in to q u e s tio n , o r e x p lic itly c o n v e y s
(9), e . g . , Do you know Q ? I d o n 't know if y o u 'll
know th is o r n o t, b u t Q.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
71
A ll o th e r th in g s b e in g e q u a l (th ey r a r e ly a r e ) , th e s p e a k e r fo r
w hom the ite m s in I V a a r e tr u e sh o u ld u tte r a q u e s tio n o f th e fo rm of
;IVb. By th e s a m e to k en , a s p e a k e r who h e a r s a q u e s tio n of th e fo rm
of IV b, a ll o th e r th in g s b ein g e q u a l, sh o u ld co n c lu d e th a t th e a s k e r
b e lie v e s h is a d d r e s s e e know s th e a n s w e r, a t l e a s t. Of c o u r s e , a
s p e a k e r c a n be i n s in c e r e , and in c e r ta in c o n te x ts th is m a y be c o m
p le te ly a c c e p ta b le . I n s in c e rity w ould be c o n s titu te d by a s p e a k e r u t t e r
ing a q u e s tio n of th e f o rm of IV b, Vb, o r VIb w ith o u t th e c o rre s p o n d in g
fa c ts of IV a, V a, o r V ia b e in g t r u e of h im . F o r e x a m p le , if s p e a k e r
a b e lie v e s th a t h is a d d re s s e e b know s so m e o b s c u re f a c t, s a y , w hich
a n im a l h a s th e l a r g e s t b r a in , and he b e lie v e s a ls o th a t b d o e s n o t
know th a t a p o s s e s s e s th is kno w led g e of b , a m ig h t u t te r (18), and in
so doing he c o u ld p a ir IV a and VIb.
(18) Y ou w o u ld n 't h a p p e n to know w h at a n im a l h a s the
l a r g e s t b r a in , w ould you?®
P r e s u m a b ly , so m e ad v a n ta g e m ig h t a c c r u e to th is d e c ep tio n ,
b 's v a n ity m ig h t be su c h th a t he w ould f e e l p ro u d of d isp la y in g h is
know ledge of o b s c u r itie s , o r a m ig h t u s e th is s itu a tio n to h e a p feig n e d
a m a z e m e n t a t b 's in te lle c tu a lity on th e l a t t e r . In any c a s e , th e s u c
c e s s of th e d e c e p tio n d e p e n d s on b a s su m in g th a t a is b eh a v in g s in
c e r e ly and c o r r e c tly p a ir in g th e a s su m p tio n s of V ia w ith a q u e s tio n of
th e f o rm of VIb.
B e fo re g oing o n , i t is w o rth m en tio n in g th a t a s im ila r s e t of
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
72
g e n e ra liz a tio n s c a n be m ad e a b o u t a s s e r tio n s . C o n s id e r s e n te n c e s
(1 9 )-(2 1 ) b elo w .
(19) T he L a k e rs w on th e g a m e .
I (20) a . D id you know th a t th e L a k e rs w on th e g a m e ?
b. Do you know th a t th e L a k e rs w on th e g a m e ?
(21) a . You p ro b a b ly a lr e a d y know it, b u t th e L a k e rs won
th e g a m e .
b. No do u b t you know th a t th e L a k e rs w on th e g a m e .
A d i r e c t a s s e r tio n lik e (19) in v ite s th e in fe re n c e th a t, a t th e tim e it
is u tte r e d , th e s p e a k e r b e lie v e s h is a d d r e s s e e d o e s n o t know th a t th e
L a k e rs w on th e g a m e . In m o re a b s tr a c t t e r m s , an a s s e r ti o n P in v ite s
th e in fe re n c e (22).
(22) B E L IE V E (a , -K N O W (b, P))
a b e lie v e s b d o e s n o t know P
It i s f o r p r e c is e ly th is r e a s o n th a t (22) co u ld a p p ro p r ia te ly be c h a l
len g e d w ith a p e e v e d s ta te m e n t lik e (23).
(23) 2 know th a t !
P r e s u m a b ly th is is a r e s u l t of th e p rin c ip le of c o n v e rs a tio n , s ta te d by
G ric e (1968), r e q u ir in g th a t a s p e a k e r m a k e a r e le v a n t c o n trib u tio n to
an y d is c o u r s e h e p a r tic ip a te s in . S im p ly s ta tin g s o m e th in g th a t is
a lr e a d y know n to th e o th e r d is c o u r s e p a rtic ip a n t( s ) i s , in c in in tu itiv e
s e n s e , to f a il th e re le v a n c y c o n d itio n .^
T he s e n te n c e s of (20) and (21) a r e a ll c a p a b le of co n v ey in g
p r e c is e ly th e s a m e in fo rm a tio n a s is c o n v ey ed by a l it e r a l s e m a n tic
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
73
in te rp re tatio n of (19) (that is , (19) m inus its in feren ce), plus c e rta in
o th er inform ation. The sentences of (20) and (21b) achieve th is b e
cause a th a t-com plem entized sentence em bedded under know is p re
supposed. Sentence (21a) achieves it by containing outrig h t the a s s e r
tion of (19).
What is in te restin g fro m our point of view is th at the sentences
of (20) contain ex p licit m a te ria l which c a lls the in feren ce invited by
(19) into question, and the sentences of (21) contain s im ila r m ate ria l
w hich, in a way, c o n trad icts the in feren ce. One could not m ake the
in itia l p a rts of (21) and the in feren ce e x p licit in a single sentence th at
is not anom alous - -co n sid e r (24).
(24)*“ ' You probably alread y know th is 1 and
No doubt you know th is ] but
I
I think you don't
know th is . . .
F u rth e r support for the ex isten ce of the inference is the ability
of but to ap p ear in sentences like (21). Since a sp eak er would not n o r
m ally m ake an a s se rtio n which he b eliev es is alre a d y known by his
a d d re sse e (s), stating such a belief is sufficien t to c re a te an expectation
th at the a s se rtio n w ill not be m ade. H ence, the sp eak er who goes on
to m ake it anyway can o v ertly recognize h is violation of the G ricean
m axim by in se rtin g an ex p ectatio n -reco g n izin g b u t. The sam e lex ical
item m ay ap p ear in questions w here the in te rro g a to r believ es his
a d d re sse e does not know the answ er, fo r exam ple (25).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(25) You p ro b a b ly w o n 't know th e a n s w e r to th is q u e s tio n ,
b u t how m an y p a ir s o f le g s do th e D e cap o d a h av e ?
It a p p e a r s th a t, w ith r e s p e c t to th e f a c ts u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n
h e r e , th e o n ly im p o r ta n t d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n q u e s tio n s and a s s e r tio n s is
th e d ire c tio n of in fo rm a tio n tr a n s f e r . T h is h a s im p o r ta n t c o n s e q u e n c e s
fo r th e u n d e rly in g s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s of th e s e two sp e e c h a c ts .
T h e s e c o n s e q u e n c e s w ill be ta k e n up in due c o u rs e .
The C o n s tra in t
C o n s id e r th e s e n te n c e s b elo w , w h e re th e s u b je c t is th e f i r s t
p e rs o n in (26) and (27), se co n d p e rs o n in (28) an d (29), and th ir d
p e rs o n in (30) and (31).
(26) a. I w an t to m a r r y you.
b. I in te n d to go h o m e.
c. I h o p e th e L a k e rs w ill w in.
(27) a. Do I w an t to m a r r y y o u ?
b. Do I in te n d to go h o m e ?
c . Do I hope th e L a k e rs w ill w in ?
(28) a. You w an t to m a r r y Jo h n .
b. You in te n d to go h o m e .
c . You hope th e L a k e rs w ill w in.
(29) a. Do you w an t to m a r r y J o h n ?
b. Do you in te n d to go h o m e ?
c. Do you hope th e L a k e rs w ill w in ?
(30) a. A rc h ie w a n ts to m a r r y y o u .
b. A rc h ie in te n d s to go h o m e.
c. A rc h ie h o p e s th e L a k e rs w ill w in.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
(31) a. Does A rchie want to m a rry you?
b. Does A rchie intend to go hom e?
c. Does A rchie hope the L a k e rs w ill win?
The q uestions in (27) m ight have in te rp re tatio n s as te s t q u e s
tions. They can also be in te rp re te d as in stan ces of a th ird type of
q uestion I have not yet m entioned, a categ o ry I w ill call Third P a rty
Q uestions.
To illu stra te th is categ o ry , I ask you to suppose th at Elm o and
Z elda have decided to get m a rrie d . They v isit Z e ld a's aged Aunt
B erth a, and she ask s E lm o, "Do you want to m a rry h e r ? " Elmo tu rn s
to Z elda and say s, "Do I want to m a rry y o u ? " (27a). In rep ly Zelda
diffidently m um bles, "Y es."
Elm o c le a rly is not attem pting to find out if he wants to m a rry
Z elda. It is h is intention th at h is a d d re sse e convey to a th ird p arty the
in form ation th at is , judging fro m the su rface fo rm of h is u tte ran c e ,
ap p aren tly sought by h im .
S peakers a re , in g en eral, quite adept at d istinguishing q u e s
tions of th is type fro m questions of o th er types. It is im p o rtan t th at
they have th is ab ility , because again the c la s s e s of a p p ro p riate r e
spon ses and challenges to th is type of question suffice to se t it a p art
fro m the o th er ty p es. F o r exam ple, resp o n se s to th ird p arty questions
alone a re p ro p erly d ire c te d at a th ird p a rty ra th e r than at the in te r ro
g ator; it is p ro p er to challenge th ird p arty q u estions with questions like
Why should I te ll h im /h e r? and so on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7 6
T h is m e a n s th a t we m u s t be a b le to d istin g u is h th e s e q u e s tio n
ty p e s n o ta tio n a lly . A m e a n s f o r d is tin g u is h in g t e s t q u e s tio n s f ro m
' p r o p e r r e q u e s ts fo r in fo rm a tio n h a s a lr e a d y b e e n o ffe re d . W hat is
I u n iq u e a b o u t th ir d p a rty q u e s tio n s is o b v io u sly th e id e n tity of th e
: in te n d e d r e c ip ie n t of th e a n s w e r. A n a b s tr a c t se m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n
o f th e e s s e n tia ls of th is q u e s tio n ty p e is g iv en a s (32).
(32) R E Q U E S T (a,b , T E L L (b ,c ,Q ))
T he a s y e t u n d isc o v e re d p r in c ip le s of th e lo g ic of d is c o u r s e th a t w ill
a llo w a f o rm a l c h a r a c te r iz a tio n of th e n o tio n s a p p ro p ria te c h a lle n g e
and a p p ro p r ia te r e s p o n s e sh o u ld m a k e u s e of th e f a c t th a t th e s e c o n d
a rg u m e n t of T E L L is n o t n e c e s s a r il y th e s p e a k e r.
To r e t u r n to th e q u e s tio n s of (27), it sh o u ld be a p p a re n t th a t
th e y a r e n o t g e n e ra lly in te r p r e te d a s p r o p e r r e q u e s ts fo r in fo rm a tio n .
In n o r m a l d is c o u r s e s itu a tio n s i t w ould be a b s u rd to su p p o se th a t I
co u ld fin d o u t th a t I wéint to m a r r y y o u , th a t I in te n d to go h o m e , o r
th a t I h ope th e L a k e rs w ill w in , by a s k in g y ou. A ny q u e s tio n w ith th e
s y n ta c tic f o rm of th o se in (27), th a t i s , an y p r e s e n t te n s e q u e s tio n
w ith f i r s t p e rs o n s u b je c t an d a h ig h e s t p r e d ic a te th a t r e f e r s to a p s y
c h o lo g ic a l s ta te ,is q u ite odd a s a p r o p e r r e q u e s t fo r in fo rm a tio n , p r e
s u m a b ly b e c a u s e kn o w led g e of th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l s ta te r e f e r r e d to c a n
be im p u te d to th e s p e a k e r if to an y o n e.
Now c o n s id e r th e s ta te m e n ts of (28). U n lik e th e s ta te m e n ts of
(26) and (30), th ey a r e n o t n o r m a lly u s e d to in fo rm an a d d re s s e e of
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
77
th e ir l it e r a l c o n te n ts , w h e re by in fo rm I m e a n 'c a u s e to co m e to b e
lie v e '. In o th e r w o rd s , if you do n o t a lr e a d y know th a t you w an t to
m a r r y Jo h n , you a re n o t lik e ly to c o m e to b e lie v e th a t you do b e c a u s e
of m y u tte r in g (28a). On th e o th e r h a n d , if you do n o t know th a t A rc h ie
w a n ts to m a r r y you, I m a y v e ry w e ll c a u se you to co m e to b e lie v e
e x a c tly th a t by u tte r in g (30a). The r e a s o n th a t th e s ta te m e n ts of (28)
g e n e ra lly la c k th is in te r p r e ta tio n is c le a r ly r e la te d to th e r e a s o n th a t
th e q u e s tio n s of (27) g e n e ra lly la c k th e p r o p e r r e q u e s t fo r in fo rm a tio n
in te r p re ta tio n .
S e a r le (1970) l is ts s e v e r a l c o n d itio n s w hich m u s t be m e t f o r an
a c t of a s s e r tin g to be fe lic ito u s . A m ong th e m is one th a t I p a ra p h r a s e
a s fo llo w s:
If a s p e a k e r a s s e r t s so m e p ro p o s itio n Q , th en it m u s t be
th e c a s e th a t it is n o t o b v io u s to b o th s p e a k e r and h e a r e r
th a t th e h e a r e r know s Q.
T h e re a r e c ir c u m s ta n c e s in r e a l d is c o u r s e ( c ir c u m s ta n c e s d iffe re n t
f ro m th o se m e n tio n ed in N ote 9) in w h ich a s p e a k e r w ill c o r r e c tly and
c o o p e ra tiv e ly u tte r w hat a r e , a c c o rd in g to th is c o n d itio n , in fe lic ito u s
a s s e r tio n s .
Suppose it is o b v io u s to th e s p e a k e r th a t the h e a r e r a lr e a d y
know s If th e s p e a k e r p r o c e e d s to a s s e r t Q, h is in te n tio n m a y be
to in fo rm h is h e a r e r th a t h e , to o , know s Q. In th is c a s e , a s e m a n tic
r e p r e s e n ta tio n of th e in fo rm a tio n he in te n d s to co n v ey w ill n o t be id e n
tic a l to th e s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n of (33), but r a t h e r to th e s e m a n tic
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
7 8
r e p r e s e n ta tio n of (34).
(33) I a s s e r t to you Q.
(34) I a s s e r t to you th a t I know Q.
jl w ill c a ll th is ty p e of a s s e r ti o n an I n d ir e c t A s s e r ti o n , a s o p p o se d to a
D ir e c t A s s e r tio n , in w h ich th e in fo rm a tio n th e s p e a k e r in te n d s to c o n
vey w ould b e r e p r e s e n te d by (33).^^
S ince th e s ta te m e n ts of (28) a r e a s s e r tio n s a b o u t th e p s y c h o lo g i
c a l s ta te of th e h e a r e r , i t w ould on ly e x c e p tio n a lly be th e c a s e th a t one
co u ld a s s u m e th a t he d o e s n o t a lr e a d y know Q. F o r a s ta te m e n t lik e
any of th o se in (28) to r e p r e s e n t a s u c c e s s fu l d ir e c t a s s e r tio n , p r e
c is e ly th is a s s u m p tio n w ould h a v e to be m a d e , a s w ould an e q u a lly
u n lik e ly a s su m p tio n on th e p a r t of th e h e a r e r , n a m e ly , th a t th e s p e a k e r
d o e s in f a c t know m o re th a n th e h e a r e r a b o u t th e l e t t e r 's p sy c h o lo g ic a l
C o n s id e r a g a in th e a c t of u tte r in g a p r o p e r r e q u e s t f o r in f o r
m a tio n . One c o n d itio n on su c h an a c t is th a t (13), r e p e a te d h e re fo r
c o n v e n ie n c e , is tr u e .
(13) -K N O W (a,Q )
a d o e s n o t know Q (w here_a is th e in te r ro g a to r)
T h is sh o u ld le a d u s to s u s p e c t, c o r r e c tly , th a t th e d e s ir e d a p p ro p r ia te
r e s p o n s e to a p r o p e r r e q u e s t f o r in fo rm a tio n is a d ir e c t a s s e r tio n ,
w h ich is to sa y th a t su c h r e s p o n s e s and d i r e c t a s s e r ti o n s h a v e the
sa m e s e t of f e lic ity c o n d itio n s. In f a c t, m ak in g a r e q u e s t m a y be
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
79
lo o k ed a t a s a w ay o f e s ta b lis h in g th a t th e f e lic ity c o n d itio n s on a s s e r t
ing h old.
G iven th a t th is is th e c a s e , i t w ould a p p e a r to b e q u ite d iffic u lt
to ju s tif y u s in g one a b s tr a c t p r e d ic a te to c h a r a c te r iz e a s s e r ti o n s and a
d iffe re n t a b s tr a c t p r e d ic a te to c h a r a c te r iz e th e a s s e r ti o n b u r ie d in r e
q u e s ts to p e rf o r m lin g u is tic a c ts . Y et th is is e x a c tly w h at h a s b e e n
done in th e p a s t. G o rd o n and L ak o ff (1971), fo r e x a m p le , r e p r e s e n t
r e q u e s ts w ith a lo g ic a l fo rm e s s e n tia lly id e n tic a l to th e one u s e d in
th is stu d y , th a t i s , (4) ( re p e a te d b elo w ), w h ile a t th e s a m e tim e r e p
r e s e n tin g th e in fe r e n c e in v ite d by a s s e r tio n s a s (35).
(4) R E Q U E S T (a ,b , T E L L (b ,a Q ))
a r e q u e s ts of b th a t b t e ll a Q
(35) S A Y (a ,b ,Q )-i* i - — B E L IE V E (a ,-K N O W (b ,Q ))
'a s a y s Q to_b' in v ite s th e in fe re n c e th a t 'a b e lie v e s
th a t b d o e s n o t know Q '
To the b e s t o f m y k now ledge th e r e a r e no c o n v in c in g a rg u m e n ts
th a t su c h a d is tin c tio n sh o u ld be m a d e . A p p a re n tly , th e e v id e n c e fo r
T E L L lie s in th e f a c t th a t c e r ta in r e q u e s ts c a n be p a r a p h r a s e d as_I
r e q u e s t th a t you te l l m e Q, b u t n o t, in th e sa m e s e n s e , a s I r e q u e s t
th a t you sa y Q. T he e v id e n c e fo r SAY i s , if it e x is ts a t a ll, e v e n
w e a k e r. It is p o s s ib le to u s e s e n te n c e s lik e I sa y (th at) Q , b u t r a r e ly
do su ch s e n te n c e s s e e m to co n v ey th e sa m e th in g a s a s im p le a s s e r tio n
M o re o v e r, it is a t l e a s t e q u a lly p o s s ib le to c o n v ey a s s e r tio n s
w ith s e n te n c e s lik e I t e l l you Q. T h u s, SAY a p p e a r s to be a p la u s ib le
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
80
b ut a r b i t r a r y c h o ic e .
I a rg u e th e n , th a t th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n SAY an d T E L L is n ot
ju s tifie d ; h e n c e , a s in g le a b s tr a c t p re d ic a te sh o u ld o c c u r b o th a s p a r t
of th e th ir d a rg u m e n t of R E Q U E S T in (4) and in th e a n te c e d e n t of (35).
I h a v e no c o n c lu s iv e e v id e n c e th a t w ould fa v o r T E L L a s o p p o se d to
SAY o r v ice v e r s a . In f a c t, I h a v e no c o n c lu s iv e e v id e n c e th a t th e
a p p ro p r ia te a b s tr a c t p r e d ic a te b e a r s any o b v io u s r e la tio n w h a te v e r to
a n E n g lis h le x ic a l ite m . F o r th e sak e of e x p e d ie n c y , h o w e v e r, I w ill
ch o o se T E L L o n th e b a s is of so m e v e ry s c a n t e v id e n c e c ite d ju s t
a b o v e -- n a m e ly , th a t T E L L and SAY a r e s o m e tim e s in te rc h a n g e a b le in
a s s e r ti o n s , b u t o n ly T E L L is a p p ro p ria te in r e q u e s ts .
T h u s, th e a n te c e d e n t of (35) sh o u ld be r e p la c e d by (36).
(36) T E L L (a ,b ,Q )
O nce th is is d o n e , th e c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e q u ite s ig n ific a n t. It now b e
c o m e s p o s s ib le to s ta te s u c c in c tly a sin g le g e n e ra liz a tio n th a t w ill
a c c o u n t f o r th e o b s e rv e d o d d ity of q u e s tio n s lik e (27) and s ta te m e n ts
lik e (28). A ll th a t n e e d be done is to ru le o u t s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n s
th a t w ould b e r e p r e s e n te d in th e f o rm g iv en a s (37).
W ANT
IN TEN D
H O P E
S U PPO S E
THINK
P R O M ISE
F E E L
(37) T E L L (x ,y ,
(y.Q))
_x t e l l s ^ that_y w a n ts /in te n d s /e tc . Q
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
81
T h is c o n s tr a in t w ill a ffe c t th e i n te r p r e ta tio n of u tte r a n c e s i n
vo lv in g a s s e r ti o n s w h e re th e seco n d a rg u m e n t of T E L L is id e n tic a l to ,
th e f i r s t a rg u m e n t of an y of th e b ra c k e te d p r e d ic a te s . It is a b s o lu te ly
c ru c ia l th a t th e g e n e ra liz a tio n be s ta te d in t e r m s of s e m a n tic e le m e n ts
r a t h e r th a n s u rf a c e s y n ta c tic o n e s, if th e fu ll sc o p e o f th e g e n e r a liz a
tio n is to be c a p tu re d . F o r , a lth o u g h c u ltu r a lly d e te rm in e d f a c to r s ,
lik e a c q u ire d o r in h e r ite d s ta tu s d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n d is c o u r s e p a r t i c
ip a n ts , a r e r e le v a n t in d e te rm in in g w h e re th e c o n s tr a in t d o e s n o t apply,
: a p p a re n tly it d o e s a p p ly to a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r e x te n t in th e fo llo w in g
la n g u a g e s: In d o n e s ia n , M a la y , A frik a a n s , D u tch , G e rm a n , F r e n c h ,
A ra b ic , and Y id d ish . N ativ e s p e a k e r s of th e s e la n g u a g e s h av e a f
f ir m e d th a t f r e e v e rb a l i n te r c o u r s e am o n g s o c ia l e q u a ls who a r e n ot
w e ll-a c q u a in te d is g o v e rn e d by th is c o n s tr a in t. A s is c u s to m a ry in
lin g u is tic s , I a s s u m e on th e b a s is of e v id e n c e f ro m a s m a ll n u m b e r of
lan g u a g e s th a t th is c o n s tr a in t is u n iv e r s a l.
T he p r e d ic a te s in b r a c k e ts a r e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of a r a t h e r la r g e
c la s s w h ich in c lu d e s n o t o n ly p r e d ic a te s r e f e r r i n g to p s y c h o lo g ic a l
s ta te s , b u t a ls o p erc e p tu cil p r e d ic a te s (in s o fa r a s th e y m ay be r e g a r d e d
a s d iff e re n t f ro m p s y c h o lo g ic a l s ta te v e rb s ) , an d p e rf o r m a tiv e s . M o re
g e n e ra lly , th e c la s s of p r e d ic a te s f o r w h ich th e c o n s tr a in t n o rm a lly
h o ld s in c lu d e s th o se f o r w h ich it is n o t n o rm a lly th e c a s e th a t bo th
P R E D IC A T E (a) and -K N O W (a, P R E D IC A T E (a )) , w h e re P R E D IC A T E
r e p r e s e n ts an y p r e d ic a te , c a n h o ld . T h a t i s , an y p r e d ic a te f o r w hich
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
82
th e im p lic a tio n g iv en a s (38) is g e n e ra lly a s s u m e d to be v a lid w ill be
s u b je c t to th e c o n s tr a in t.
(38) P R E D IC A T E (a ,Q ) — KN OW (a, P R E D IC A T E (a, Q))
Q m a y be n u ll.
F o r e x a m p le , if a p r o m is e s Q (w h e re Q in c lu d e s w h a te v e r e ls e is p a r t
of th e s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n of th e p r o m is e ) , th e im p lic a tio n th a t ^
know s th a t h e p r o m is e s Q is a p p a re n tly v a lid , so a s e n te n c e lik e (39)
c a n n o t be u s e d to in fo rm th e h e a r e r th a t he p r o m is e s an y th in g .
(39) Y ou p ro m is e to go dow ntow n.
A r e q u e s t lik e (40) i s , of c o u rs e , p e rf e c tly a c c e p ta b le .
(40) I r e q u e s t th a t you p r o m is e to go dow ntow n.
T h is i s a c o n se q u e n c e of th e f a c t th a t a s s e r ti o n s an d p r o m is e s a r e d if- ;
f e r e n t ty p e s of lin g u is tic a c ts , and sh o u ld th e r e f o r e h a v e d iffe re n t
s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s .
F o r m u la e (41) an d (42) a r e a b s tr a c t r e p r e s e n ta tio n s of th e
s e n te n c e s (27a) and (2 8 a), re p e a te d h e re fo r c o n v e n ie n c e .
(27a) Do I w an t to m a r r y y o u ?
(41) R E Q U E S T (a,b , T E L L (b ,a , w h e th e r W A N T(a,
M A R R Y (a,b))))
(28a) You w an t to m a r r y Jo h n .
(42) T E L L (a , b , W AN T(b, M A R R Y (b, c)))
In b o th c a s e s th e seco n d a rg u m e n t of T E L L is id e n tic a l to th e f i r s t
a rg u m e n t of th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l s ta te v e rb an d so th e c o n s tr a in t a p p lie s .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
83
a lth o u g h in th e f i r s t c a s e th e a rg u m e n t r e p r e s e n ts th e s p e a k e r and in
th e l a t t e r , th e h e a r e r .
S u m m a ry
T h re e ty p e s of q u e s tio n s and tw o ty p e s of a s s e r tio n s h av e b e e n
e s t a b l i s h e d . T h e q u e stio n ty p e s a re :
1. T e s t q u e stio n s
2. P r o p e r r e q u e s ts f o r in fo rm a tio n
3. T h ird p a rty q u e s tio n s .
The a s s e r ti o n ty p e s a re :
1. D ir e c t
2; I n d ir e c t.
T he ty p e s e s ta b lis h e d h e re h a v e b e e n show n to d iffe r in th re e
1. In fo rm a tio n co n v ey ed
2. A p p ro p ria te r e s p o n s e s
3. A p p ro p ria te c h a lle n g e s .
In a d d itio n , a g e n e ra l s e m a n tic p rin c ip le h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d .
The p r in c ip le fu n c tio n s in th e fo llo w in g w ay: i t e ffe c tiv e ly r u le s o ut
c e r t a in sem cintic in te r p re ta tio n s of q u e s tio n s an d s ta te m e n ts (su b je c t
to th e in flu e n c e of s ta ta b le c o n te x ts ), th e r e b y p a r tia lly d isa m b ig u a tin g
p o te n tia lly am b ig u o u s s e n te n c e s.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
8 4
M o re o v e r, it h a s b e e n show n th a t th e s y n ta c tic and l it e r a l
s e m a n tic fo rm of c e r ta in c o m p le x q u e s tio n s and s ta te m e n ts is th e
r e s u l t of in fo rm a tio n th a t w ould be co n v e y ed by l e s s c o m p le x f o rm s .
T h is in fo rm a tio n c a n n o t be fo u n d in a l i t e r a l in te r p r e ta tio n of th e
s im p le r f o rm s . T h u s, in o r d e r to u n d e rs ta n d how to u se th e c o m p le x
q u e s tio n s and s ta te m e n ts , a s p e a k e r m u s t h a v e in te r n a liz e d c e r ta in
p r in c ip le s f o r r e la tin g th e s e lin g u is tic a c ts to in fo rm a tio n a b o u t h im
s e lf and h is a d d re s s e e .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
re p re s e n ts a p roposition, sim ple o r com plex. This propo-
nay be rea liz e d sy n tactically as a question, statem en t, com - sitio n m ay
m and, etc.
at groups as well as individuals. F o r the p u rp o ses of th is study, I am
confining m y self to single a d d re sse e q uestions. My conclusions can be
m odified in obvious ways to handle g ro u p -d irected questions.
re p re s e n ts negation.
indicate th at the im p licatio n s a re subject to additional contextual in flu
en ces. F o r exam ple, even if the pro p o sitio n s w ere tru e of a sp eak er,
he m ight not fo rm u late any question if he felt th at doing so would have
ad v erse consequences. " • " re p re s e n ts conjunction.
under d iscu ssio n can be found in C hapter II of Eve C u rie 's biography
of h e r m o th er. H ere she re la te s th at h e r m o th e r, when she was a
child, had been singled out fo r c la ssro o m rec ita tio n on those in fre
quent occasio n s when a re p re se n ta tiv e of the C zar was p rese n t in h e r
P o lish school, because it was im p o rtan t to m ake a favorable im p r e s
sion, and h er m other could be counted on to know the answ ers to q u e s
tions put to h e r.
tive P rin c ip le .
tan t thing is th at (16) convey som ething like (17). L a ter in th is study,
I will use BELIEV E(a, KNOW(b,Q)) in place of (17), on the assum ption
th at a 's believing his a d d re sse e knows the answ er to a question is , in
all c ru c ia l re s p e c ts , equivalent to a 's expecting him to know the
answ er.
^The anim al in question is the blue whale, B alaenopterus
m uscu lu s.
som ething a lre a d y known to all d isc o u rse p a rticip a n ts. In th ese co n
tex ts such an u tte ran c e w ill g en erally fulfill one of two functions. It
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
w ill e ith e r (a) focus attention on som e known fac t, o r (b) e sta b lish
som e known inform ation as a (logical) b a sis upon which genuinely
inform ative statem en ts w ill be m ade. It is c le a r th at (b) does not fail
a relev an cy condition, and th at what should be co n sid ered in th is case
is the e n tire argum ent, of w hich only a p a rt c o n sists of a lread y known
statem en ts. Although (a) p re s e n ts som ew hat of a problem fo r G rice,
p erh ap s he would c o n sid er th is atten tio n -fo cu sin g function of language
to be n o n co n v ersatio n al. In th is study, I am sim ply ignoring th is
function.
r a r e o ccasions on which it is obvious to the sp eak er th at the h e a re r
knows som ething, but not obvious to the h e a re r th a t he knows it.
^^I believe th ese te rm s a re su p e rio r to infelicito u s and fe lic i
tous since th ere a re o th er ty p es of "in felicitio u s" a s se rtio n s (such as
lie s) which differ in th e ir co n v ersatio n al consequences fro m what I
have called in d ire ct a s se rtio n s .
^^See Kac (1972) fo r d isc u ssio n of a c la s s of I say Q a sse rtio n s
th at a re not equivalent to the c o rresp o n d in g Q a sse rtio n s .
which is a problem indeed. The c o n stra in t applies with com plete
g en erality only to p re se n t ten se q u estions and a sse rtio n s .
of c o u rse , an exhaustive listin g of ques
tion and a sse rtio n ty p es. I re f e r h e re only to th o se specific types
whose a p p ro p riaten ess conditions have been d iscu ssed in the text.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C H A P T E R HI
A P P L Y IN G T H E CO N STRA IN T
In tro d u c tio n
W hat I h a v e done th u s f a r is to d e m o n s tra te c e r ta in w ays th a t
l a r g e c la s s e s of s e n te n c e s a r e p o te n tia lly am b ig u o u s in te r m s of th e
in fo rm a tio n th e y c a n c o n v ey . F o r e x a m p le , se n te n c e (1) b elow co u ld
b e , in e ffe c t, an a c c u s a tio n , o r it c o u ld be a sim p le a s s e r tio n .
(1) You w ant to m a r r y H a r r y .
If i t is an a c c u s a tio n , i t co n v e y s c e r ta in in fo rm a tio n a b o u t its s p e a k e r
to its a d d r e s s e e , b ut i t d o e s n o t c o n v ey th e in fo rm a tio n th a t th e a d
d r e s s e e w a n ts to m a r r y H a r r y . A s w h at I h av e c a lle d a d ir e c t a s s e r
tio n , it w ould c o n v ey p r e c is e ly th is in fo rm a tio n .
T he c o n s tr a in t (le t u s c a ll i t th e P s y c h o lo g ic a l S ta te s C o n
s tr a in t , o r P S C ), h o w e v e r, o p e ra te s h e re an d , e x c e p t in s p e c ia l c o n
te x ts w h ich r e n d e r th e c o n s tr a in t in a p p lic a b le , r e s o lv e s th e a m b ig u ity .
T h e se s p e c ia l c o n te x ts g e n e ra lly c o n ta in c e r ta in c h a r a c te r i s t ic s
iw hich a r e s u ffic ie n tly o b v io u s to r e s o lv e th e a m b ig u ity th e m s e lv e s (in
a w ay o p p o site to th a t of th e c o n s tr a in t). T h u s, th e c o n s tr a in t is its e lf
a m e a n s of re d u c in g p o te n tia l a m b ig u ity . L a te r I w ill a rg u e th a t su ch
87
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n p ro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
m e a n s a p p e a r to be b io lo g ic a lly n e c e s s a r y g iv en th e a m b ig u ity d e
s c rib e d by tr a d itio n a l g e n e ra tiv e g r a m m a r . F u r th e r m o r e , th e PSC is
s e n s itiv e to c o n te x t and c u ltu r a l f a c to r s in w ay s w h ich c a n be c a p tu re d
jby b a s ic a lly s o c io lo g ic a l g e n e ra liz a tio n s . To e x e m p lify th is , I a s k you
to c o n s id e r th e fo llo w in g s itu a tio n ; a and b a r e d is c o u r s e p a rtic ip a n ts ,
a a d d r e s s e s to b a s e n te n c e w h o se e x p e c te d i n te r p r e ta tio n is r u le d o u t
;by th e c o n s tr a in t. S e n ten c e (1), f o r e x a m p le , h a s th e s y n ta c tic fo rm
o f a d i r e c t a s s e r ti o n , b u t if it c a n a c tu a lly r e p r e s e n t a d i r e c t a s s e r tio n
lit i s , in a s e n s e , a m b ig u o u s, f o r i t c a n a ls o c o n v ey a n a c c u s a tio n
(i. e. , i ts a m b ig u ity r e s i d e s in th e f a c t th a t it m a y o r m ay n o t convey
th e s p e c ia l in fo rm a tio n th a t th e s p e a k e r is a c c u s in g h is a d d re s s e e of
so m e th in g ).^ N o rm a lly , b a p p lie s th e c o n s tr a in t a u to m a tic a lly , t h e r e
by d e s tro y in g a p o te n tia l a m b ig u ity . If, h o w e v e r, b b e a r s a c e r ta in
c u ltu r a lly d e te rm in e d s ta tu s r e la tio n s h ip to a , if, fo r e x a m p le , a is a
p s y c h ia tr is t an d b h is p a tie n t, he m a y re c o g n iz e th a t he sh o u ld n o t
ap p ly th e c o n s tr a in t an d a c c o m p lis h d is a m b ig u a tio n in th is m a n n e r.
Of c o u r s e , d isa m b ig u a tio n c o u ld n o t be a c h ie v e d in th is l a t t e r fa s h io n
u n le s s so m e p a r tic u la r s e t of in fo rm a tio n is b a s ic to th e u tte r e d s e n
te n c e , and a n o th e r (th a t w hich r e s u l ts f ro m ap p ly in g th e c o n s tr a in t) is
d e riv e d fro m th a t b a s ic in fo rm a tio n . I a m a rg u in g th a t, in m an y c a s e s ,
th e l it e r a l m e a n in g s of s e n te n c e s c a n be r e la te d in law fu l w ay s to n o n
l it e r a l m e a n in g s . If th is is th e c a s e , an a d e q u a te d e s c r ip tio n of a
la n g u a g e m u s t in clu d e a s ta te m e n t of th e s e law fu l r e la tio n s h ip s .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
89
W hat I w ill a tte m p t to do in th is c h a p te r is to show th a t th e c o n
s tr a in t f o rm s a n in d is p e n s a b le p a r t of an a d e q u ate a c co u n t of so m e d i s
p a ra te a r e a s of g r a m m a r . In so d o in g , I w ill f ro m tim e to tim e p o s it
o th e r s e m a n tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s th a t a r e b a s ic a lly of th e sa m e ty p e a s
th e c o n s tr a in t. The c o n s tr a in t an d th e s e o th e r fo rm a lly s im ila r r u le s
w ill b e se e n to be m u tu a lly re in f o rc in g .
SH A L L and WILL.
In "D eep S tru c tu re , S u rfa c e S tru c tu re and S e m an tic I n te r p r e
ta tio n " C h o m sk y (1969) c la im s th a t th e b e h a v io r of c e r ta in m o d a ls s u g
g e s ts a ro le fo r S IR 's. He c it e s th e fo llo w in g s e n te n c e s:
(2) I s h a ll go dow ntow n.
(3) S h all I go dow ntow n?
(4) Jo h n w ill go dow ntow n.
(5) Jo h n w o n 't go dow ntow n.
C h o m sk y s a y s th a t sh a ll in (2) an d w ill in (4) a r e s e m a n tic a lly s im p ly
te n s e m a r k e r s . In (3), on th e o th e r h a n d , s h a ll is sy n o n y m o u s w ith
s h o u ld . S en ten ce (5) is s a id to be am b ig u o u s b e tw e en b ein g a sim p le
p r e d ic tio n ab o u t th e fu tu re and a s ta te m e n t to th e e ffe c t th a t Jo h n r e
f u s e s to go. T he tre a tm e n t he s u g g e s ts to h a n d le th e se m a n tic f a c ts
p r e s e n te d h e re is to allo w s h a ll an d w ill th e in h e r e n t se m a n tic p r o p e r ty
of f u tu r ity , and to s e t up a t l e a s t tw o S IR 's . One su c h ru le w ould m a k e
e x p lic it m e n tio n of th e le x ic a l ite m s h a ll and a n o th e r w ould m e n tio n
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
90
w ill. The a p p lic a tio n of th e S IR 's w ould be t r ig g e r e d by s p e c ifie d
e n v iro n m e n ts , and th e ir e ffe c t w ould be to a s s ig n th e c o r r e c t s e m a n tic
in te r p r e ta tio n s to s e n te n c e s c o n ta in in g th e s e le x ic a l ite m s in t h e i r
n o n fu tu re u s e s .
T h is a p p ro a c h is q u e s tio n a b le f o r a t l e a s t tw o r e a s o n s . F i r s t ,
th e s e r u le s a r e n o t m o tiv a te d by an y in d ep e n d e n t fa c t of g r a m m a r .
S eco n d , by C h o m s k y 's own a d m is s io n , so m e of th e sa m e f a c ts o b ta in
w ith c e r ta in fu tu re te n s e m a r k e r s in a v a rie ty of la n g u a g e s , b u t a SIR
a p p ro a c h w ould t r e a t any in te rla n g u a g e s im il a r it ie s a s c o in c id e n c e s .
I w ill a tte m p t to d e m o n s tra te th a t th e y a re n o t c o in c id e n c e s , b u t r a t h e r
th e r e s u l t of th e se m a n tic c o n s tr a in t and c e r ta in r e la tio n s b e tw e e n
s e m a n tic e le m e n ts th a t sh o u ld be s ta te d w h a te v e r th e a p p ro a c h .
C o n s id e r s e n te n c e s (6 )-(9 )-
(6) We s h a ll o v e rc o m e .
(7) I s h a ll r e tu r n .
(8) We w ill o v e rc o m e .
(9) I w ill r e tu r n .
M o st p e o p le I h av e a s k e d h a v e f e lt th a t th e s e n te n c e s w ith s h a ll c o n v e y
a c o m m itm e n t th a t th e s e n te n c e s w ith w ill n e e d n o t (fo r th e s e an d m a n y
s im ila r b u t u n fam o u s s e n te n c e s ) . If s h a ll an d w ill b o th h a v e th e s in g le
in h e r e n t s e m a n tic p r o p e r ty of f u tu r ity , th e n we c o u ld r e p r e s e n t th is
c o m m itm e n t, in a tr e a tm e n t s im ila r to C h o m s k y 's , by c re a tin g a SIR
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
91 ;
m e n tio n in g s h a ll to add w h a te v e r s e m a n tic e le m e n t is d e e m e d
n e c e s s a r y .
A n o th e r w ay to c a p tu re th e sa m e f a c t is to r e p r e s e n t s h a ll w ith
a s e m a n tic e le m e n t so m e th in g lik e in te n d . By th is I do n o t m e a n to
im p ly th a t th e s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n s fo r s h a ll and in te n d sh o u ld be
id e n tic a l. W hat I a m a tte m p tin g to c a p tu re i s th e f a c t th a t s e n te n c e s
lik e (6) and (7) co n v ey a p a r tic u la r p sy c h o lo g ic a l d is p o s itio n on th e p a r t
of th e i r s p e a k e r - s u b je c ts . T h is d is p o s itio n in c o r p o r a te s an in te n tio n
(as w e ll a s a r a t h e r f ir m b e lie f th a t th e in te n d e d a c tio n w ill co m e
ab o u t). S ince s e n te n c e s w h ich co n v ey in te n tio n s sp e c ify s o m e th in g
ab o u t a tim e th a t is fu tu r e w ith r e s p e c t to th e tim e of th e in te n tio n , th e
fu tu r ity of s h a ll is a u to m a tic a lly a c c o u n te d f o r. A t th e s a m e tim e , it
is c le a r th a t s e n te n c e s lik e (3) w ill h av e a s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n th a t
is ru le d o u t by th e c o n s tr a in t. M o re o v e r, it s e e m s q u ite d iffic u lt, if
n o t im p o s s ib le , to im a g in e a c o n te x t in w h ich th e c o n s tr a in t co u ld f a il
to ap p ly to in te n tio n s . W e b s te r's S ev en th New C o lle g ia te D ic tio n a ry
iu se s, in d e fin in g in te n d and in te n tio n , th e p h r a s e " [to ] h av e in m in d ,"
w h ich a p p a re n tly m e a n s "to be c o n s c io u s o f," o r th e lik e . T he f a c t th a t
th e c o n s tr a in t a lw a y s a p p lie s to s e n te n c e s lik e (3), and céinnot be s u s
p e n d e d , is due to th e f a c t th a t it s e e m s im p o s s ib le to a s s u m e th a t a n y
o n e , r e g a r d le s s of s o c ia l s ta n d in g , c o u ld know m o re ab o u t w hat a g iv en
in d iv id u a l is c o n s c io u s of th a n th a t in d iv id u a l h im s e lf . T h u s, a p s y
c h ia tr ic p a tie n t m ig h t v e ry w e ll p u t q u e s tio n (10) to h is p s y c h ia tr is t.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
92
and r e c e iv e a r e s p o n s e w h ich in d ic a te s th a t th e c o n s tr a in t h a s b e e n
su sp en d e d .
(10) Do I w a n t to k ill m y f a th e r ?
B ut th e s a m e p a tie n t is lik e ly to r e c e iv e no re s p o n s e a t a ll (o r p e rh a p s
a m o re s e v e r e d ia g n o s is ) if he a tte m p ts to p u t q u e s tio n (11) to h is
p s y c h ia tr is t.
(11) A m I c o n s c io u s of w an tin g to k ill m y f a t h e r ?
; The p ro b le m w h ich r e m a in s is to a c c o u n t fo r th e re a d in g of s e n te n c e
(3) th a t s p e a k e r s a c tu a lly do g e t.
In a d is c o u r s e it is p o s s ib le fo r n e a rly an y s ta te m e n t to be
c h a lle n g e d w ith a q u e s tio n th a t a s k s f o r a re a s o n .^ The q u e s tio n m u s t
be d ire c te d a t th e c o n te n t of th e s ta te m e n t o r a t th e s p e a k e r 's r e a s o n s
fo r u tte r in g th e s ta te m e n t. T h a t i s , th e q u e s tio n m u s t e ith e r p r e
su p p o se th e c o n te n t of th e s ta te m e n t o r c h a lle n g e it. F o r e x a m p le ,
c o n s id e r th e d is c o u r s e s c o lla p s e d a s (12).
(12) A: The su n w ill b u r n o ut in a b o u t 8 m illio n y e a r s .
B: (i) W hy (w ill it b u rn out) ?
(ii) W hat m a k e s you th in k so ?
In (i), B 's r e s p o n s e p r e s u p p o s e s A 's a s s e r tio n . T h e re c a n be no
r e a s o n why th e su n w ill b u rn o u t if it i s n 't going to b u rn o u t. In (ii),
B no lo n g e r p r e s u p p o s e s A 's a s s e r tio n . He is n o t a c c e p tin g th a t th e
su n w ill b u rn o u t an d a s k in g why th is e v e n t w ill ta k e p la c e , b u t
r a t h e r he is a s k in g w hy A th in k s th e e v e n t w ill ta k e p la c e . B y fa ilin g
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
93
to presuppose A 's a s se rtio n with h is resp o n se , B is in effect q u estio n
ing the validity of the content of th at a sse rtio n .
The c la s s of p re d ic a te s which a re o r can be subject to the con
s tr a in t- -c a ll them psychological state p re d ic a te s--d o e s not p e rm it
What m akes you think so ? challenges to u tte ran c e s of the fo rm f ir s t
p e rso n subject plus p sychological state pred icate in the p re s e n t ten se.
So, given the sen ten ces (13a) and (14a), the challenges (13b) and (14b)
are odd. T here a re of co u rse challenges of the oth er type. S entences
;(13c) and (14c) a re quite n o rm al.
(13) a. I w ant to go downtown.
b. ? W hat m akes you think you want to go downtown?
c . Why do you want to go downtown ?
(14) a. I intend to go downtown.
b. ?W hat m akes you think you intend to go downtown?
c. Why do you intend to go downtown?
The stran g en ess of (13b) and (14b) can be explained in te rm s of the
c o n stra in t. R ecall th a t the co n stra in t applies to p re d ic a te s fo r which
the im plication (15) is a ssu m ed to hold.
(15) PR ED ICA TE(a, Q) — KNOW(a, PREDICA TE(a, Q))
(PRED ICATE = any p red ic a te , Q m ay be null)
If a sp eak er says he w ants o r intends to do som ething, we assu m e gen
e ra lly th at h e 's tellin g the tru th (cf. G rice, 1968). If he is tellin g the
tru th , then, given th at (15) holds fo r the sem antic re p re se n ta tio n s of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9 4
p red ic a te s like want and in ten d , he knows th at he w ants o r intends to
do w hatever he says he w ants o r intends to do. Sentences ( 13b) and
(14b) do not challenge the s p e a k e r's tru th fu ln ess. H ow ever, they would
req u ire th at (15) not hold, though they do not e sta b lish a context in
which such a susp en sio n would be m ade. Thus, they a re odd.
Note th at if an explanation of th ese facts in te rm s of (15) is
c o rre c t, we should expect th at truthful sp eak ers could not m ake f ir s t
p erso n , p re s e n t te n se , psychological state p red icatio n s while at the
sam e tim e m aintaining th at they do not know th at th o se p red icatio n s
are tru e . This expectation is borne out by sen ten ces like (16) and (17).
(16) ? I think I intend to go downtown.
(17) ?I intend to go downtown, but I do n 't know it.
T here a re those who find sentence (13b) b e tte r than (14b). This
m ay be a re s u lt of the fact th at the c o n stra in t is su spendable with
p red ic a te s like w ant. A sp eak er m u st be conscious of what he intends
to do, but need not alw ays be conscious of h is w ants. He m ay th e r e
fo re o b serv e c e rta in fac ts about h is behavior which lead him to con
clude (or to think) th at he has som e want he is not d ire c tly conscious
of. This h ypothesis w ill account fo r the p o ssib ility of finding a se n
tence like (18), which is an ap p aren t counterexam ple to the explanation
offered above, to be an acceptable u tteran ce on its lite ra l in te r p ré ta -
(18) I think I want to go downtown.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
If i t is p o s s ib le f o r a s p e a k e r to c o n clu d e th a t he h a s so m e w an t, th en
it sh o u ld be p o s s ib le f o r a n o th e r s p e a k e r to a s s u m e , g iv en a s e n te n c e
lik e (13a), th a t i ts s p e a k e r u tte r e d it n o t b e c a u s e of c o n s c io u s e x p e r i
e n c e of a w an t, b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e of su c h a c o n c lu s io n . In th is c a s e , ;
se n te n c e (13b) m ig h t be so m e w h at p re s u m p tu o u s , b u t by no m e a n s
im p o s s ib le . T he im p o s s ib ility of an in d iv id u a l's c o n c lu d in g th a t th e
in te n d s to do s o m e th in g a c c o u n ts fo r th e u n a c c e p ta b ility of (14b), (16), ^
and (17).
In o r d e r to h a n d le th e n o rm a l ty p e of c h a lle n g e , l e t u s a d m it
th e im p lic a tio n (19), w h ich s ta te s th a t if a s p e a k e r s a y s he w a n ts o r
in te n d s so m e th in g h e im p lie s th a t th e r e e x is ts a r e a s o n fo r h im to
w an t o r in te n d it.^
(19) T E L L (a ,b , V « b ( a ,Q ) ) -
O r ) R E A S O N (r,a , (a , V e r b ,a ,Q ) ))
(
w a n ts 1
in te n d s | to do s o m e th in g , th e n h e im -
e tc . I
p lie s th a t t h e r e e x is ts an £ su c h th a t £ i s a r e a s o n fo r a
to w a n t/in te n d /e tc . to do it.
N ote th a t th is im p lic a tio n s ta te s a r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n sem éintic r e p
r e s e n ta tio n s . T h u s, a s p e a k e r w ould n o t n e c e s s a r il y h a v e to u tte r a
s e n te n c e c o n ta in in g w a n t o r in te n d in o r d e r f o r th e im p lic a tio n to a p p ly .
A ll th a t is n e c e s s a r y is th a t th e s p e a k e r sa y s o m e th in g w hich c o n v e y s
to h is l is te n e r th a t h e w a n ts o r in te n d s so m e th in g .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
.......................
It s e e m s lo g ic a l to su p p o se th a t a s u g g e stio n to do so m e th in g
w ould fu lfill th is r e q u ir e m e n t, w ith r e s p e c t to W ANT a t le a s t. If th is
is th e c a s e , th e n a p s e u d o -im p e ra tiv e lik e (20) w ould i ts e lf im p ly th e
a n te c e d e n t of (19).
(20) L e t 's g e t o u t of h e re !
Once th e a n te c e d e n t of (19) i s s u c c e s s fu lly c o n v e y e d , th e c o n se q u e n t
w ill be im p lie d . A ssu m in g th is is. a ll a t le a s t a p p ro x im a te ly c o r r e c t, we
sh o u ld e x p e c t th a t it w ould be p o s s ib le f o r th e a d d r e s s e e of (20) to
re s p o n d a p p ro p r ia te ly w ith (21), w hich is in d e e d th e c a s e .
(21) W hy do you w an t to g e t o u t o f h e r e ?
Now c o n s id e r th e d is c o u r s e s (22) and (2 3 ), ta k e n fro m r e a l
s p e e c h p ro d u c e d by n o n lin g u ists .
(22) A: Do I w an t a g la s s of m ilk ?
B: S u re . I t 's good fo r you.
(23) A: Do I in te n d to stu d y to n ig h t ?
B: You r e a lly sho u ld .
A l it e r a l in te r p r e ta tio n of th e A s e n te n c e s is r u le d o u t by th e s e m a n tic
c o n s tr a in t. The B s e n te n c e s b o th a s s e r t the e x is te n c e of a r e a s o n why
th e p a r t i c u l a r s ta te s r e p r e s e n te d by th e v e rb s w a n t an d in te n d sh o u ld be
tr u e of s p e a k e r A. T h a t i s , q u e s tio n s w ith th e a p p ro p r ia te m a in v e rb s
in v o lv in g s e m a n tic s tr u c tu r e s th a t v io la te th e c o n s tr a in t c a n be ta k e n
a s q u e s tio n in g th e c o n s e q u e n t of im p lic a tio n (19). F u r th e r m o r e , if
th ey a r e n o t ta k e n in th is w ay , th ey a r e tr e a te d a s n o n s e n s e . H e n c e ,
w ith th e a p p ro p r ia te s e m a n tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n of s h a ll , th e o nly
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
97
m ea n in g fu l in te r p r e ta tio n of s e n te n c e s lik e (3), g iv en a c h o ic e b e tw e en
th e l i t e r a l m e a n in g and th e m e a n in g d e riv e d by a p p lic a tio n of ( 19), w ill
be th e o n e w h ich in v o lv e s th e u s e of (19).
It is an o b v io u s f a c t th a t s p e a k e r s a r e q u ite a d e p t a t im p o sin g
in te r p r e ta tio n s on w h at m u s t be c o n s id e r e d lo g ic a lly ill- f o r m e d s e n
te n c e s . T h e re i s , m o re o v e r, a h ig h d e g re e of c o n s is te n c y in th e i n t e r
p r e ta tio n s th e y w ill im p o s e . A q u e s tio n lik e Do you w a n t N ixon to be
im p e a c h e d ? co u ld c o n c e iv a b ly be a n s w e re d w ith I do and I d o n 't. T he
lo g ic a l s tr u c tu r e of th is re p ly is a p p a re n tly a c o n tra d ic tio n (A - -A ),
y e t i t is q u ite g e n e ra lly n o t in te r p r e te d a s a n in s ta n c e of a s p e a k e r c o n
tr a d ic tin g h im s e lf , b u t r a t h e r a s if it a s s e r te d T h e re e x is ts so m e r e a
so n o r r e a s o n s why I do and so m e o th e r r e a s o n o r r e a s o n s why I d o n 't. ■
In c a s e s in v o lv in g w an t and in te n d an d th e s e m a n tic c o n s tr a in t, im p li
c a tio n (19) c o d ifie s th e p rin c ip le th a t a c c o u n ts f o r so m e a c tu a l i n t e r
p r e ta tio n s of a c la s s of ill-f o r m e d s e m a n tic s tr u c tu r e s .
Now l e t u s tu r n to th e p ro b le m w ith w ill. In c e r ta in s e n te n c e s
and c o n te x ts th is le x ic a l ite m c a n be u s e d to im p ly an in te n tio n . C o n
s id e r , f o r e x a m p le , s e n te n c e (24).
(24) Jo h n s a y s h e w ill d iv o rc e h is w ife no m a tte r w h at she
In s te a d of fo rm u la tin g cinother SIR, c o n s id e r th e p o s s ib ility th a t th is
im p lic a tio n r e s u l ts f ro m th e (o r an) in h e r e n t s e m a n tic p r o p e r ty of w ill
r a t h e r th a n f ro m th e le x ic a l ite m its e lf . T h is w ould allo w th e f a c ts to
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
be rep re se n te d with (25).
(25) FUTURE(D O(x,Q ))*-* INTEND(x, DO(x,Q))
w here * is to be rea d as 'in c e rta in c o n te x ts', i. e. ,
X w ill do Q im p lie s, in c e rta in contexts, th at x intends
to do Q.
Sentence (4) then should also be am biguous betw een a read in g on which
it is sim ply a statem en t about the future and one on which it im p lies
that John intends to go downtown. This is in fac t the case . A ssum ing
th at the sim ple future read in g is not in question, im agine the following
icontext. I com e to you and te ll you th at although I know John h a te s m e,
I went to him and thanked him fo r h is announcem ent th at he absolutely
'would not go downtown. You ask m e if anything exciting happened
when I saw John, and I rep ly , "Y es, John will go downtown." Given
th at sentence (4) is ambiguous in th ese se n se s, it is only to be expected
th at sentence (5) will be am biguous in about the way Chom sky say s.
On one read in g , the sentence sim ply a s s e r ts th at a c e rta in event w ill
not take p lace. On the o th er read in g , it im p lies the sam e in fo rm atio n
as does the sentence John intends not to go downtown. But in o rd e r for
John to m ake a refu sa l som ething m u st be req u ested of him . If the
req u e st is th at he go downtown, then a rep ly like I intend not to go
downtown, o r any o th er rep ly which conveys such an intention, will
c o nstitute a refu sa l. Given the im p licatio n (25), sentence (5) is
obviously capable of conveying the req u ired intention.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
One r e s t r i c ti o n on th e a p p lic a tio n of th e s e r u le s of im p lic a tio n
is th a t th e r e s u ltin g s e m a n tic s tr u c tu r e n o t be a n o m a lo u s . If one m a k e s
th e r a t h e r c o m m o n a s s u m p tio n th a t in a n im a te o b je c ts c a n n o t h av e i n
te n tio n s , th e n o n a m b ig u ity of so m e s e n te n c e s c o n ta in in g w ill p lu s a
n e g a tiv e fo llo w s f ro m th e f a c t th a t a se m a n tic a n o m a ly w ould r e s u l t
fro m ap p ly in g im p lic a tio n (25). C o n s id e r, fo r e x a m p le , s e n te n c e s
(2 6 )-(2 8 ).
(26) T h e su n w o n 't b u rn o ut fo r a lo n g tim e .
(27) T he ta b le w o n 't a r r iv e to d ay .
(28) T he p ic tu r e w o n 't f a ll down f ro m th e r e .
The s a m e p r in c ip le th a t r u le s o u t lo g ic a l s tr u c tu r e s of th e f o rm
IN T E N D (a,Q ) w h e re a is in a n im a te w ill ru le o u t th e in te n tio n i n t e r p r e
ta tio n o f th e s e s e n te n c e s .
T h e re a r e s e n te n c e s w ith w ill w hich a r e a ls o c a p a b le o f im p ly
ing a w an t in so m e c o n te x ts . Suppose th a t so m e o n e a s k s you if you
w ould lik e so m e th in g to d r in k and you r e p ly w ith s e n te n c e (29).
(29) I w ill h a v e te a .
The r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e l it e r a l m e a n in g of th is r e s p o n s e and its
im p lie d m e a n in g i s r e p r e s e n te d in (30).
(30) F U T U R E (D O (a ,Q ))* -* W A N T(a, D O (a,Q )
a w ill do Q im p lie s , in c e r ta in c o n te x ts , th a t a w a n ts to
do Q.
P o s itin g th is im p lic a tio n a llo w s an e x p la n a tio n o f w hy a s e n te n c e lik e
(31a) c a n be p a r a p h r a s e d w ith (31b). In c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e s e m a n tic
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
100
co n stra in t, it m o tiv ates the c o rre c t p red ictio n th at sentence (32a) has
no in te rp re ta tio n akin to a lite ra l in te rp re ta tio n of (32b).
(31) a. Will you have tea ?
b. Do you want te a ?
(32) a. Will I have te a ?
b. Do I want te a ?
The above an aly sis applies also to the fu tu re m a rk e r in
A frikaans and to the fu tu re ten se m a rk e rs of Indonesian.
(33) Sal jy 'n koppie tee d rin k ? (A frikaans)
W ill you a cup te a d rin k ? (lite ra l)
W ill you have a cup of te a ? (E nglish equivalent)
(34) A pa kam u rninum teh ? (Indonesian)
[ p a r t ie l ^ ] drin k te a ? (lite ra l)
W ill you have te a ? (E nglish equivalent)
Sentence (33) is a ra th e r polite offer in A frik aan s, and not a req u e st,
even though sal is gen erally not a volitional fu tu re . Mau and akan a re
both v e rb a l a u x iliary fu tu re m a rk e rs in Indonesian. T heir in h eren t
sem antic p ro p e rtie s a re not a m a tte r of com plete a g re e m en t among
W estern g ram m arian s. S aru m p aetan d M ack ie (1966) claim th at akan
is an inten tio n al fu tu re and m au m eans "to w ant, w ish ." Wolff (1966)
c la im s, to the c o n tra ry , th at akan is sim ply a fu tu re m a rk e r and m au
is an inten tio n al fu tu re. E chols and Shadily (1963) give sim ple future
m eanings (am ong o th ers) to both akan and m au. The existence of se n
ten ces like (35) m ilita te s against Sarum paet and M ackie.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(35) N a s i in i a k a n d im a k a n n a n ti. (In d o n e sia n )
R ic e th is w ill be e a te n l a t e r . ( lite r a l)
T h is r ic e w ill be e a te n l a t e r . (E n g lis h e q u iv a le n t)
M o re o v e r, it is th e fe e lin g of m y in fo rm a n ts th a t W o lff's tr e a tm e n t is
a p p ro x im a te ly c o r r e c t. A c c e p tin g th e ju d g m e n ts of m y in fo rm a n ts
f o r c e s re c o g n itio n of a k a n a s a sim p le f u tu r e , b u t th e s e s a m e in f o r
m a n ts a c c e p t b o th of th e s e n te n c e s of (34) a s o f fe r s of te a . T h u s, th e
t r e a tm e n t I a m o ffe rin g f o r E n g lis h w ould a p p ly u n a lte re d to th is s e t
of In d o n e s ia n d a ta and to A frik a a n s a s w e ll. I w ould e x p e c t i t to ap p ly
:in a g r e a t m an y o th e r la n g u a g e s . If th e im p lic a tio n s a re ta k e n a s i n
v o lv in g s e m a n tic e le m e n ts r a t h e r th a n s u rfa c e s y n ta c tic o n e s , it is
p o s s ib le to s ta te d ir e c tly g e n e ra liz a tio n s th a t co u ld n o t be s ta te d w ith
s i r ' s of th e ty p e e n v is io n e d by C h o m sk y .
I m ig h t a lso p o in t o u t th a t s in c e th e r e a r e a t p r e s e n t no l im i
ta tio n s on s i r ' s , a r u le w h ich in te r p r e t s w ill p lu s a n e g a tiv e a s b e in g
sy n o n y m o u s w ith d e s s ic a te is j u s t a s a c c e p ta b le a s one th a t in te r p r e t s
th is se q u en c e a s b e in g sy n o n y m o u s w ith in te n d n o t to . Y e t it is c e r
ta in ly th e c a s e th a t a m b ig u itie s of th e ty p e C h o m sk y m e n tio n s a re l im
ite d to a s m a ll c la s s of r e la te d m e a n in g s . T h a t i s , a fu tu re te n s e
m a r k e r m a y im p ly a w an t o r a n in te n tio n , b u t n o t a r e g r e t, a n h y p o th
e s is , e tc . T h is is a lo g ic a l c o n se q u e n c e of th e f a c t th a t h u m a n s a re
lik e ly to do w h at th e y w an t to o r in te n d to , an d n o t lik e ly to do w hat
th e y r e g r e t (if su c h a th in g is p o s s ib le in th e f i r s t p la c e ). S ince i t is
im p o s s ib le to 'do a h y p o th e s is ', it fo llo w s th a t i t sh o u ld be im p o s s ib le
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
102
f o r a f u tu re te n s e m a r k e r to im p ly a h y p o th e s is . T h u s, th e c o n s tr a in t
th a t a c c o u n ts f o r th is lim ite d ra n g e of p o s s ib ilitie s is c le a r ly sem éin tic;
iin n a tu r e . If we ad o p t the SIR a p p ro a c h , we w ill n e e d to r e s t r i c t th e
n o tio n of p o s s ib le SIR w ith th is c o n s tr a in t. A n o th e r o b v io u s r e s t r i c ti o n
;on th e n o tio n of p o s s ib le SIR is th e in d ep e n d e n tly m o tiv a te d s e m a n tic
c o n s tr a in t. No SIR sh o u ld be allo w e d to r e s u l t in s e m a n tic s tr u c tu r e s
w h ich it r u le s ou t.
In fa c t, it C e in e a s ily be show n th a t th e im p lic a tio n s (25) and (30)
do n o t ap p ly w hen th e ir a p p lic a tio n w ould r e s u l t in a v io la tio n o f th e
c o n s tr a in t. C o n s id e r s e n te n c e (36).
(36) You w ill h a v e te a .
T h is s e n te n c e m a y r e p r e s e n t an o r d e r to h av e te a , b u t it c a n n o t in fo rm
i ts a d d re s s e e th a t h e w a n ts o r in te n d s to h av e te a . S c h e m a tic s e m a n tic
r e p r e s e n ta tio n s of th e s e im p o s s ib le m e s s a g e s a re g iv en b e lo w .
(37) a . T E L L (a ,b , W AN T(b, H A V E (b ,c)))
b. T E L L (a ,b , IN T E N D (b, H A V E (b ,c)))
N ote th a t b o th of th e s e r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , w h ich w ould r e s u l t f ro m a p
p ly in g im p lic a tio n s (30) an d (2 5 ), r e s p e c tiv e ly , v io la te th e s e m a n tic
c o n s tr a in t- - th e se co n d a rg u m e n t of T E L L and th e f i r s t a rg u m e n t of
th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l s ta te v e r b s W ANT and IN TEN D a r e id e n tic a l.
A s n e c e s s a r y s e m a n tic c o n s tr a in ts and r e la tio n s a r e s ta te d ,
w h at m ig h t h av e b e e n c o n s id e r e d e v id e n c e f o r th e e x is te n c e o f S IR 's of
th e ty p e C h o m sk y o f fe r s is c o n tin u a lly e ro d e d . G iven a c o m p le te
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
103 I
s e m a n tic s , th e r u le s m ig h t be c o m p le te ly s u p e rflu o u s . G iv en o u r
c u r r e n t, in c o m p le te s e m a n tic s , th e y s e rv e p r im a r ily to e x te n d c o n -
s ie r a b ly th e n o tio n of p o s s ib le g r a m m a r . C e rta in ly th e y c a n ad d n o th
in g to th e e x p la n a to ry p o w e r of g r a m m a r .
O th e r Mo d a is
The sa m e f o rm a l d e v ic e s I h av e e m p lo y e d ab o v e c a n be u s e d to :
c a p tu re s im ila r f a c ts in v o lv in g c e r ta in re a d in g s of o th e r m o d a is a s
w e ll. C o n s id e r s e n te n c e s (38) and (39).
(38) I céin s p e a k In d o n e sia n .
(39) C an I s p e a k In d o n e s ia n ?
S en ten ce (38) is a m b ig u o u s b e tw e e n a s s e r tin g th a t I h av e th e a b ility to
s p e a k In d o n e sia n and a s s e r ti n g th a t I h av e p e rm is s io n to s p e a k it.
S en ten ce (39), on th e o th e r h a n d , is u n in te llig ib le a s a s in c e r e a tte m p t
to fin d o u t w h e th e r I a m a b le to sp e a k In d o n e isa n o r n o t.^ In th is
r e s p e c t, it b e h a v e s lik e a p s y c h o lo g ic a l s ta te v e rb , and p e rh a p s th e
s e m a n tic c o n s tr a in t c o u ld be in v o k ed to ru le o u t th is in te r p r e ta tio n .
Suppose th a t th e b a s ic m e a n in g of c a n , a t l e a s t wiUi r e s p e c t to
th e c h o ic e b e tw e en -th e a b ility and d e o n tic m e a n in g s in q u e s tio n h e r e , is
A B L E TO. In an y c o n te x t w h e re p e r m is s io n is a s s u m e d to be a n e c e s
s a ry c o n d itio n fo r th e p e rf o r m a n c e of so m e a c t, a n a s s e r ti o n th a t a is
ab le to do th e a c t w ill im p ly th a t he h a s p e rm is s io n to do it.^ If we
co d ify th is w ith th e im p lic a tio n (40), th e n th e p rin c ip le th a t r u le s o u t
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
1 0 4
th e l it e r a l in te r p r e ta tio n of s e n te n c e (39) w ill m o tiv a te in te r p r e tin g th e
s e n te n c e a s q u e s tio n in g th e c o n s e q u e n t of (40).
(40) A B L E T O (a, D O ( a .Q ) ) * - P E R M IT (c ,a , D O (a.Q ))
A s a t e s t of th e v a lid ity of th is a n a ly s is , c o n s id e r th e odd
s e n te n c e (41).
(41) ? I c a n go to th e m o v ie s , b u t m y m o th e r w o n 't le t m e .
The c la u s e of (41) c o n ta in in g c a n w ould n o r m a lly be ta k e n a s a s ta t e
m e n t of p e rm is s io n . S ince m o s t p e o p le a s s u m e th a t o th e r s a r e in g e n
e r a l p h y s ic a lly c a p a b le of going to m o v ie s , th e r e w ould be no c o m
m u n ic a tiv e c o n te n t to th e f i r s t c la u s e of (41) if i t w e re n o t a s ta te m e n t
of p e rm is s io n .^ T h u s, one s e t of c o n te x ts in w h ich th e im p lic a tio n is
a p p lic a b le is th e s e t of c o n te x ts in w h ich th e r e i s no c o m m u n ic a tiv e
co n te n t to a s ta te m e n t of a b ility . B ut in v o k in g th e im p lic a tio n in
in te r p re tin g s e n te n c e (41) le a d s to a c o n tra d ic tio n , w h ich i s , I b e lie v e ,
th e r e a s o n th a t th is se n te n c e an d o th e r s lik e it a r e c o n s id e r e d odd.
A g a in , m an y of th e sa m e f a c ts o b ta in in o th e r la n g u a g e s . B i s a ,
th e In d o n e s ia n e q u iv a le n t of c a n , and k o n n en in m o d e rn c o llo q u ia l
G e rm a n b eh a v e in m u c h th e s a m e fa s h io n .
T he m o d a l m a y c a n be g iv en a s im ila r t r e a tm e n t w ith r e s p e c t
to i ts p o s s ib ility and p e r m is s io n re a d in g s . C o n s id e r th e s e n te n c e s (42)
an d (43).
(42) I m a y s p e a k In d o n e sia n .
(43) M ay I s p e a k In d o n e s ia n ?
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
105
W hen p e r m is s io n is ta k e n a s a n e c e s s a r y c o n d itio n on th e o c c u rr e n c e
of a p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t, a n a s s e r tio n th a t it is p o s s ib le th a t th e e v e n t w ill
ta k e p la c e im p lie s th a t one h a s p e rm is s io n . T h is is r e p r e s e n te d a s
(44).
(44) P O S S IB L E (D O (a ,Q ))* — P E R M IT (c ,a ,D O (a ,Q ))
Now c o n s id e r s e n te n c e s (45) an d (46).
(45) Is it p o s s ib le th a t I sp e a k In d o n e s ia n ?
(46) Is it p o s s ib le fo r m e to s p e a k In d o n e sia n ?
S e n ten c e (45) s tr i k e s m e and o th e r s a s so m e h o w odd. A p p a re n tly th e
im p lic a tio n b lo c k s w ith th a t- c o m p le m e n ts , w h ich s u g g e sts s u p p o rt fo r
an a lr e a d y o ld id e a th a t c o m p le m e n tiz e r s a r e n o t d ev o id of se m a n tic
s ig n ific a n c e . S e n ten c e (46), h o w e v e r, c a n be ta k e n a s a r e q u e s t fo r
p e r m is s io n e v e n th o u g h th e s e n te n c e c o n ta in s an o v e rt o c c u rr e n c e of
th e le x ic a l ite m p o s s ib le . H e n c e , th e im p lic a tio n (44) s e e m s to be
m o tiv a te d q u ite a p a r t fro m th e e x is te n c e of a le x ic a l ite m m a y .
T he c o n te x ts in w h ich th e s e im p lic a tio n s a r e a p p lic a b le a re
r e s t r i c te d to th o s e in w hich th e r e is no o v e r t s ta te m e n t o r p a r t of a
s ta te m e n t th a t w ould m ak e th e ir a p p lic a tio n r e s u l t in a c o n tra d ic tio n .
T h u s, (44) w ould n o t ap p ly to a s e n te n c e w ith an a p p ro p ria te q u a lify in g
p h r a s e , s u c h a s I m a y sp e a k In d o n e s ia n , if th e a u d ie n c e w ill le t m e ,
s in c e th e q u a lify in g p h r a s e c o n v e y s th e in fo rm a tio n th a t th e s p e a k e r
d o e s n o t y e t h a v e p e rm is s io n . A ll th e r u le s of im p lic a tio n th a t b eh av e
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
106
in th is w ay co u ld be ta k e n a s r e p r e s e n tin g in v ite d in fe r e n c e s r a t h e r
th a n lo g ic a l im p lic a tio n s , b u t s in c e th e q u a lify in g p h r a s e s fo rm a p a r t
of th e c o n te x t of th e 'b a r e ' s e n te n c e s to w h ich th e y a re ad d e d , an d c o n
te x t i s an in te g r a l p a r t of th e s e r u le s , it is n o t c le a r th a t th e d is tin c tio n
b e tw e e n im p lic a tio n cind in v ite d in fe re n c e n e e d b e , o r c a n b e , m a in
ta in e d . We w ill n e e d a f a r g r e a t e r u n d e rs ta n d in g of th e n a tu r e and
in flu e n ce of c o n te x t b e fo re th is p ro b le m c a n re c e iv e ad e q u ate
c la r if ic a tio n .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
A d d itio n a l e x a m p le s th a t i ll u s t r a te th e p o in t b e in g m ad e h e re
o c c u r in th e fo llo w in g p a g e s. T h e s e e x a m p le s in clu d e in s ta n c e s of
am b ig u ity th a t a re n o t a s f o re ig n to tr a d itio n a l g e n e ra tiv e g r a m m a r a s
th e a m b ig u ity b e tw e e n d ir e c t a s s e r ti o n and a c c u s a tio n e x e m p lifie d
^ S ta te m e n ts w h ich c o n ta in an o v e rt e x p la n a tio n of why th ey
w e re u tte r e d a r e , of c o u rs e , e x c e p tio n s.
^ T h e u s e of im p lie s h e r e is s o m e w h at q u e s tio n a b le . L a te r on i
I ap p ly th is s a m e w o rd to so m e re la tiv e ly c le a r c a s e s of in v ite d i n f e r
e n c e . In th is stu d y , I w ill n o t d is tin g u is h im p lic a tio n f ro m in v ite d
in fe r e n c e . O nce c o n te x t i s c o n s id e r e d , it is n o t c le a r th a t th e tw o a re
in f a c t d is tin c t lin g u is tic a lly . In th e c o n te x t of a c o m p le te s e m a n tic s ,
in c lu d in g a n a tu r a l lo g ic , I w ould s u s p e c t th a t th e y a r e n o t.
An a d d itio n a l r e m a r k on in v ite d in fe r e n c e c o n c lu d e s th e m a in
body o f th is c h a p te r .
^ S e n te n c e (38) c a n be u s e d to e li c it a v a lu e ju d g m e n t a b o u t how
w e ll th e a s k e r s p e a k s In d o n e s ia n , b u t th is p r e s u p p o s e s th a t he is ab le
to s p e a k it, in th e in te n d e d s e n se of a b le .
^I a m n o t u s in g 'n e c e s s a r y c o n d itio n ' in its c u s to m a ry lo g ic a l
s e n s e , b u t r a t h e r in a p r a g m a tic s e n s e . T h u s, if I w an ted to th ro w
o u t y o u r p ic tu r e of J u lie N ixon, and I w as c a p a b le of th ro w in g it o u t,
b u t I a b s o lu te ly w ould n o t do so w ith o u t y o u r p e r m is s io n , th e n p e r
m is s io n w ould c o n s titu te , fo r m e , a n e c e s s a r y c o n d itio n fo r th e p e r
fo rm a n c e of th e a c t of th ro w in g o u t y o u r p ic tu r e .
^In a d is c o u r s e s itu a tio n , th e p a rtic ip a n ts a r e lik e ly to s h a re
a n u m b e r of a s s u m p tio n s . If a s p e a k e r v e rb a liz e s one o f th e s e s h a re d
a s s u m p tio n s , h e w ill n o t s u c c e e d in in fo rm in g h is l is te n e r o f th e l i t
e r a l c o n te n ts o f h is r e m a r k , n o r w ill h e in fo rm h im of an y im p lie d
m e a n in g th a t c a n be d e riv e d by r u le s of im p lic a tio n , s in c e a ll th is
in fo rm a tio n w ill a lr e a d y be know n by th e l is te n e r . (He m a y of c o u rs e
offend h is l is te n e r o r c o n v in c e h im th a t h e is lis te n in g to an ig n o ra m u s ,
bu t th e s e a r e n o t lin g u is tic b its of in fo rm a tio n . ) S ta te m e n ts of th is
ty p e a r e s a id to la c k c o m m u n ic a tiv e c o n te n t.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
C H A P T E R IV
TH E PH Y LO G EN Y O F GRAM M AR
In tro d u c tio n
E s s e n tia lly w h at h a s b e e n a rg u e d fo r in p re c e d in g c h a p te r s i s ai
v iew o f g r a m m a r th a t h o ld s th a t th e m e s s a g e co n v ey ed by s e n te n c e s of
n a tu r a l la n g u a g e s sh o u ld be th e s ta r tin g p o in t fo r th e s ta te m e n t of l in
g u istic g e n e ra liz a tio n s , fo r th e q u a n ta of g r a m m a r s . T h is view u n ite s
th e f o rm of g r a m m a r , of lan g u a g e i ts e lf , w ith its fu n ctio n .
T he q u e s tio n of th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e en lan g u a g e fo rm an d l a n
guage fu n c tio n is one th a t h a s , f o r th e m o s t p a r t , gone u n e x p lo re d in
th e fie ld of lin g u is tic s . A s we h a v e a lr e a d y s e e n , B lo o m fie ld w as p r e
p a re d to a c c e p t th a t th e fu n ctio n of la n g u a g e w as in so m e w ay i n t i
m a te ly c o n n e c te d w ith m e a n in g s . In h is c a s e , we c a n su p p o se th a t h e
ig n o re d th e fo rm -fu n c tio n q u e s tio n b e c a u s e of th e a lle g e d n o n s c ie n tif ic -
n e s s of th e in v e s tig a tio n of m e a n in g . If lan g u a g e , a p a r t f ro m m e a n
in g , c o u ld b e tr e a te d s c ie n tif ic a lly , b u t an a ll- im p o rta n t a s p e c t o f th e
fu n c tio n of lan g u a g e (i. e. , m ea n in g ) co u ld n o t, th e n it w ould be i m p o s
sib le to r e l a te f o rm and fu n ctio n w ith in a s c ie n tific th e o ry .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
109
Chom sky, to whom we owe a co n sid erab le debt fo r h is le g iti
m ization of questions of m eaning, could not exclude the fo rm -fu n ctio n
q uestion on the sam e gro u n d s, since h is th eo ry im p lie s th a t, although
questions of m eaning m ay be som ew hat m o re opaque than q u estions of
syntax, the two a re a s len d th em selv es to in vestigation by a single
; scien tific m ethodology. Chom sky did, how ever, exclude the fo rm -
function question in a rriv in g at his th eo ry of g ram m ar. It would be
in stru ctiv e to see on w hat he b ased th is exclusion.
F o rm and F unction in G ram m ar
P re s s u re to c o n sid e r the form -function q uestion com es b riefly
fro m biology. Language m u st be co n sid ered a b iological phenom enon,
w hether the hum an language faculty (which I take to include the la n
guage acquisition device) is a ttrib u ted solely to in c re a se d intellig en ce
o r assigned to som e sp ecific p rin cip les of n eu ral o rg an izatio n th at
have no analogues in lo w er an im als. The fact th at the com m unications
sy stem s of low er a n im a ls g en erally serv e some tra n s p a re n t biological
function h as tem pted som e psy ch o lo g ists, b io lo g ists, and philo so p h ers
to assu m e th at hum an language also se rv e s som e b io lo g ical function(s),
and th is being the c a se , the p r e s s u re s of n atu ral se le c tio n would p ro
vide th at, given any g en etically d eterm in ed v ariatio n in the language
faculty, the sy stem which b e s t fu lfills the unspecified biolo g ical func-
tion(s) will be the sy ste m th at is dom inant. If th is reaso n in g w ere
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
v alid, it would be incum bent upon lin g u ists to in v estig ate the fo rm -
function question, since function would, to som e extent at le a s t, d e te r
m ine fo rm --p e rh a p s only at the lev el of the g ro ss c h a ra c te ristic s of
hum an language, such as those specified by H ockett (1965), o r p erh ap s
even at the lev el of p a rtic u la r fo rm al o r substantive u n iv erse ls of the
type d isc u sse d rep eated ly by Chom sky.
Chom sky, how ever, ap p ears not to accep t th is view. In a p ro
tra c te d a rg u m en t a g ain st con sid erin g hum an language in lig h t of the
p rin c ip le s applied to o th er anim al com m unications sy ste m s, he w rites;
Hum an language, it ap p e ars, is b ased on e n tirely d ifferen t p rin
c ip les [fro m those upon which a re b ased o th er anim al co m m u n ica
tio n s sy ste m s]. T his, I think, is an im p o rtan t point, often o v e r
looked by those who approach hum an language as a n a tu ra l, biolog
ica l phenom enon; in p a rtic u la r, it seem s ra th e r p o in tless, for
th ese re a s o n s , to speculate about the evolution of hum an language
fro m sim p le r s y s te m s--p e rh a p s as ab su rd as it would be to sp ecu
late about the "evolution" of atom s fro m clouds of elem en tary
p a rtic le s .
A s fa r as we know, p o ssessio n of hum an language is a sso ciated
with a sp ecific type of m ental o rg an izatio n , not sim ply a hig h er
d eg ree of in tellig en ce. T here seem s to be no substance to the view
th at hum an language is sim ply a m o re com plex instance of so m e
thing to be found elsew h ere in the anim al w orld. This p oses a
p roblem fo r the b iologist, sin ce, if tru e , it is an exam ple of tru e
" e m e rg e n c e " --th e appearance of a q u alitativ ely d ifferen t phenom e
non at a specific stage of com plexity of organ izatio n . (1968, p. 62)
E ven if we accep t C hom sky's claim th at hum an language r e p r e
sen ts an in stan ce of (biological) em e rg e n ce , we w ill not succeed in
d ism issin g the fo rm -fu n ctio n question. B iological phenom ena, w hether
m orphological o r b eh av io ral, féill into one of th re e c la sse s: (1) those
which have a p ositive su rv iv al value, (2) those which have a negative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
survival value, and (3) those which have no su rv iv al value (these I call
accid en tal p ro p e rtie s ).
A ll o th er things being equal, an em erg en t t r a i t w ill not p e rs is t
if it falls into c la s s (2); it will p e rs is t if it falls into c la s s (1); and if it
fa lls into c la ss (3) o th er c h a ra c te ris tic s (nam ely, those which fall into
c la s s e s (1) and (2)) w ill d eterm in e w hether the em e rg e n t t r a it p e rs is ts .
If we could show th at hum an language is an accid en tal p ro p erty ,
we would ju stify neg lect of the fo rm -fu n ctio n q uestion, since no b io
lo g ical fo rc e s would have acted to shape language to som e function.
H ow ever, it cannot be arg u ed cogently th at hum an language is an
accid en tal p ro p erty .^
A concept th at is c ru c ia l in determ ining which c la s s a p a rtic u la r
t r a it belongs in is the concept of biological s u c c e s s . In o rd e r to be
biologically su c ce ssfu l, a sp ecies h as to m ain tain o r in c re a se its num
b e rs o ver an a rb itra r ily extensive period of tim e. Thus, any c h a ra c
te r is tic of an o rg an ism which, c e te ris p a rib u s, c o n trib u te s to a long
te rm in c re a se in its population, for ex am p le, h as positive su rv iv al
value. W ith re g a rd to hum an h isto ry , we can safely say th at the a g ri
c u ltu ral revolution, the u rb an revolution, the in d u stria l revolution,
and the r is e of m ed ical science all appear to be co n trib u to rs to m an 's
as yet unquestionable b iological su c ce ss (see C hilde, 1951).
In nontechnical lite ra tu re , it is cu sto m ary to tre a t th is su ccess
as a r e s u lt of in c re a se d in tellig en ce. H ow ever, th e re can be no
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
question th a t intelligence per se is not resp o n sib le for the whole extent
of m a n 's dom inance. Com mon sense su ffices to e sta b lish that the
above co n trib u to rs to m an 's b iological su c ce ss have depended fo r th e ir
tim in g , if not th e ir very ex isten ce, on language. If, as Chom sky
m ain tain s, language is not sim ply the r e s u lt of m o re intellig en ce, then
it m u st be the case th at, up to the p re s e n t at le a s t, our unique language
facu lty h as p o ssesse d a positive su rv iv al value. That is , language
fu lfills som e function(s) conducive to the expansion of m ankind. If we
could d eterm in e what th at function is , we would determ in e the d ire c tio n
of influence of biological p r e s s u re s th at w ere o p erativ e before the
em erg en ce of hum an language, and which have no doubt been o p erativ e
fo r the la s t s e v era l hundred thousand y e a rs , at le a st.
It is quite easy to im agine a p o sitiv e su rv iv al value in the a b il
ity of hum an language to tra n s m it com plex m essa g e s fro m hum an to
hum an, and in fact the alread y m entioned re le v a n t advances in hum an
c u ltu re depend in ev ery instance on th is fundam entally social cap acity
of language. We m ight suppose, then, th at fro m a biological p e rs p e c
tiv e th is re p re s e n ts the cru c ia l fac to r in determ in in g the fo rm of la n
guage , and p erh ap s of g ram m ar. That is , we could say th at what
em erg ed when hum an language ap p eared was a v e rb a l system (and the
n e u ro lo g ical and beh av io ral m ech an ism s to cope with it) that was b e tte r
suited to the fu lfillm ent of this function than any o th er sy stem s (and
n eu ro lo g ical and b ehavioral m ech an ism s).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C h o m sk y d o e s n o t ta k e th is view . He w r ite s :
It is w ro n g to th in k of h u m a n u s e of lan g u a g e a s c h a r a c te r i s t ic a l ly
in fo rm a tiv e , in f a c t o r in in te n tio n . H u m an lan g u a g e c a n be u s e d
to in fo rm o r m is le a d , to c la r if y o n e 's own th o u g h ts o r to d isp la y
o n e 's c le v e r n e s s , o r s im p ly f o r p lay . If I sp e a k w ith no c o n c e rn
f o r m o d ify in g y o u r b e h a v io r o r th o u g h ts , I a m n o t u s in g lan g u a g e
any l e s s th a n if I sa y e x a c tly th e sa m e th in g s w ith su c h in te n tio n .
If we h ope to u n d e rs ta n d h u m an lan g u a g e and th e p sy c h o lo g ic a l
c a p a c itie s on w h ich i t r e s t s , we m u s t f i r s t a s k w h at i t i s , n o t how
o r f o r w hat p u r p o s e s it is u s e d . (1968, pp. 6 1 -62)
T h is is a d m itte d ly a r a t h e r in fo rm a l c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f th e
u s e s of lan g u a g e . I do n o t know e x a c tly w h at C h o m sk y h a s in m in d
w hen he u s e s th e w o rd " in f o r m a tiv e ." In an a tte m p t to do h im a s
s m a ll an in ju s tic e a s p o s s ib le , le t m e ad o p t a v e ry n a r r o w d e fin itio n
of in f o r m --o n e so n a rr o w th a t an y m o re p r e c is e d e fin itio n C h o m sk y
w ould give w ould in clu d e m y d e fin itio n a s w e ll. L e t m e d e fin e in fo rm
in th e w ay I h av e u s e d it p re v io u s ly in th is stu d y , n a m e ly , " c a u s e to
c o m e to b e lie v e ."
Now th e l i s t of fu n c tio n s th a t C h o m sk y g iv e s in th e ab o v e q uote
a p p e a r quit-? in te r e s tin g . T h e f i r s t tw o a r e p a te n tly in fo rm a tiv e in m y
s e n s e of in fo r m - - to m is le a d so m eo n e is to in fo rm h im o f s o m e th in g
th a t i s n o t t r u e , o r to s e le c tiv e ly in fo rm h im of th in g s th a t a r e tr u e ,
bu t w h ich w ill le a d h im to so m e e rr o n e o u s c o n c lu s io n . (N ote a ls o th a t
Ithe a b ility to s u c c e s s f u lly m is le a d so m e o n e d e p e n d s c r u c ia lly on the
s p e a k e r b e in g ab le to p r e d ic t w ith g r e a t p r e c is io n th e s e m a n tic c o n s e
q u e n c e s of h is u tte r a n c e ( s ) . In so m e w h at d iffe re n t t e r m s , th e i n f e r
e n c e s th e s p e a k e r in v ite s m a y v e ry w e ll be a t l e a s t a s im p o r ta n t a s
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
114
any l it e r a l in te r p r e ta tio n (à la ST) th a t h is s e n te n c e s c a n r e c e i v e .)
T he o th e r th r e e fu n c tio n s m a y be tr u ly n o n in fo rm a tiv e , b u t, an d th is
is c r u c ia l, th e y c a n be s e e n to be lo g ic a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f c e r ta in n o n -
lin g u is tic h u m an t r a i t s and j u s t th o se lin g u is tic t r a i t s th a t s e e m to
d e fin e th e b io lo g ic a lly o p tim a l s y s te m fo r fu lfillin g th e in fo rm a tiv e
fu n c tio n , w h ile th e in fo rm a tiv e fu n c tio n its e lf c a n n o t be d e riv e d fro m
th e n o n in fo rm a tiv e fu n c tio n s.
The lin g u is tic t r a i t s r e le v a n t h e r e a r e th e s e : s e m a n tic ity ,
o p e n n e s s , a r b i t r a r in e s s , p r e v a r ic a tio n , an d th e p h y s ic a l c h a r a c t e r i s
tic s of th e h u m a n v o c a l a p p a ra tu s . S e m an tic ity r e f e r s to th e f a c t th a t
lin g u is tic s ig n a ls b e a r a s s o c ia tiv e t ie s w ith f e a tu r e s in th e r e a l w o rld
(cf. H o c k e tt, 1965, p. 10). W ith o u t su c h t ie s , lan g u a g e w ould be
u s e le s s in d e a lin g w ith th e r e a l w o rld . O p e n n e ss, a s th e t e r m is g e n
e r a lly u s e d , r e f e r s n o t j u s t to th e f a c t th a t an y n a tu r a l lan g u a g e is
c a p a b le of en c o d in g in fin ite ly m a n y d is c r e te and d iff e re n t m e s s a g e s ,
b u t th a t i t is c a p a b le of d oing so in a n o n triv ia l w ay ,^ th u s im p ly in g an
im p r e s s iv e f le x ib ility in d e a lin g v e rb a lly w ith e v e r- s h if tin g e n v ir o n
m e n ts . W ith r e g a r d to a r b i t r a r in e s s , if th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e en
sound and m e a n in g w e re n o t a r b i t r a r y , g en u in e ly new a s p e c ts of th e
e n v iro n m e n t ( e m e rg e n t p h e n o m e n a , to è x te n d a te r m ) w ould be n o n -
c o d a b le . T h u s , it a p p e a r s th a t 'a r b i t r a r i n e s s ' is a t e r m w h ich in d i
c a te s in d ir e c tly m a n 's a b ility to give la b e ls to w h a t a r e f o r h im
e n tir e ly n ew c o n c e p tu a l c o n fig u ra tio n s . P r e v a r ic a tio n is a t e r m u se d
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
115
to r e p r e s e n t, in p a r t, th e f a c t th a t ''lin g u is tic m e s s a g e s c a n be f a l s e "
(H o c k e tt, 1965, p. 12). O rg a n is m s h a v in g a s y s te m w hich la c k s p r e
v a ric a tio n a r e in a s e n s e b io lo g ic a lly d e te rm in e d to t e l l the tru th .
H o c k e tt ta k e s p r e v a r ic a tio n to be a n e c e s s a r y p r e r e q u is ite fo r th e f o r
m u la tio n of h y p o th e s e s . If th is is t r u e , o b v io u s a rg u m e n ts w ould le a d
u s to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t p r e v a r ic a tio n d o e s its e lf p o s s e s s a p o s itiv e
s u rv iv a l v a lu e . The e v o lu tio n a ry c h a n g e s r e s p o n s ib le fo r th e p r e s e n t
p h y s ic a l c h a r a c te r i s t ic s of th e h u m a n v o c a l a p p a ra tu s a p p e a r to in d i
c a te th e d e v e lo p m e n t of a p h y s ic a l c a p a b ility w h ich is e x tr e m e ly h a r d
to m o tiv a te w ith o u t in v o k in g th e o b v io u s f a c t th a t v o c a liz a tio n s e r v e s ,
an d h a s s e rv e d f o r a long tim e , a s o c ia l, c o m m u n ic a tiv e fu n ctio n .
The n o n lin g u istic t r a i t s w h ich s e e m to be r e le v a n t h e re a r e
th e s e : a m e m o r y w ith c e r ta in s p e c ifia b le a b ilitie s , a s y s te m of lo g ic ,
and p la y fu ln e s s . If we lin k th e lin g u is tic t r a i t s w ith a m e m o ry th a t c a n
s to r e , f i r s t , lin g u is tic r u le s and in fo r m a tio n d e riv e d fro m th e m lo n g
e n o u g h f o r a c o m p le te m e s s a g e to be p r o c e s s e d , and seco n d , a s p e c ts
o f e x p e rie n c e , we a c c o u n t in ro u g h f a s h io n fo r th e c o m m u n ic a tiv e f u n c
tio n of la n g u a g e . T h is w ould s u g g e s t th a t th e r e m a y v e ry w ell be s p e
c ia l p r o p e r tie s of h u m an m e m o ry th a t h a v e ev o lv e d alo n g w ith th e l a n
gu ag e fu n c tio n , and in d e e d , th is s e e m s to be th e c a s e . T h e re is an
e x te n s iv e e x p e rim e n ta l l it e r a t u r e on th e e ffe c ts of v e rb a l co d in g on
m e m o ry . A s f a r a s I know , a ll in v e s tig a to r s a g re e th a t v e rb a l c o d in g
s e e m s to i n c r e a s e th e e ff e c tiv e n e s s of r e c a l l, a t l e a s t of c e r ta in ty p e s
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
116
of inform ation. Given th is effect and the ex isten ce of a sy stem of logic
in hum ans, it follow s th at language should be capable of being used to
c la rify o n e's own th oughts, in som e sense of th at p h ra se .
Given th at th e re is nothing like a b iologically determ in ed co m
m itm ent to tru th in hum an s, it follow s th at our com m unication sy stem
should be capable of being used to m islead , in the sen se of lie . Given,
in addition, the m em o ry and sy stem of logic d isc u sse d above, our
com m unication sy ste m should be capable of being u sed to m islead in
the sense of th at w ord which involves bringing the m isle d individual to
an in c o rre c t conclusion fro m tru e , but p rag m atically insufficient,
p rem ise s.
As fo r the rem ain in g functions of language Chom sky m entions,
that is , play and disp lay in g o n e's c le v e rn ess, c o n sid e r th is quote fro m
Chomsky:
[Harlow] points out, in m any p a p e rs, th at c u rio sity , play, explo
ratio n , and m anipulation a re , fo r p rim a te s, often m o re potent
d riv es than hunger and the lik e, and th at they show none of the
c h a ra c te ristic s of acq u ired d riv e s. (1959, p. 40)
Thus, a sy stem with th e c a p ab ilities for inform ing th at hum an léinguage
p o ssesse s is quite lo g ically a sy stem th at can be played with, th at can
be used to display o n e 's c le v e rn e ss. It is not the c a s e , how ever, that
a ll things th at can be played with o r th at can be u sed to display o n e's
c le v e rn ess a re also capable of com m unicating com plex m essa g e s in a
reaso n ab ly p re c ise way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
C hom sky's rea so n s fo r d ism issin g the fo rm -fu n ctio n question,
then, a re th ese: (1) language is an exam ple of b iological em erg en ce,
not the evolutionary re s u lt of selectio n p r e s s u re s on m o re p rim itiv e
com m unication sy stem s; and (2) language h as m any functions, none of
which is c h a ra c te ristic in the sen se th at it e x e rts a d eterm ining in flu
ence on the c h a ra c te r of language itse lf. I have trie d to argue that
(1) is in c o rre c t on the grounds th at e m erg en t phenom ena a re as s u s
ceptible to biological p re s s u r e s as a re nonem ergent phenom ena; and
(2) is in c o rre c t because the functions of language a re not se p ara te and
equal, &it ra th e r can be deriv ed fro m the info rm ativ e function (along
with the g ro ss linguistic tr a its which define it) and o th er nonlinguistic
hum an tra its .
I assu m e then, th at the p rim a ry function, the biologically r e le -
vEint function, of language is to tra n s m it inform ation fro m one sp eak er
to a n o th er, and that the ability of language to fu lfill th is function
accounts fo r the p ositive su rv iv al value of the hum an language faculty.
It is only by recognizing the p rim acy of the so cial, inform ative asp ect
of language th at we can account fo r the c h ild 's c re a tio n of lin guistic
ru le s , u sed co n sisten tly to sig n al d ifferen ces in m eaning, th at have no
analogue in the p rim a ry lin g u istic data to which the child is exposed.
Given th ese a ssu m p tio n s, selectio n p r e s s u re s will a c t to fac ilitate the
acq u isitio n by the child of lin g u istic g e n eralizatio n s th at re la te v erb al
sig n als to the m essa g e s those signals convey. That is , the ru le s of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
g ram m ar a child a c q u ire s (or c re a tes) w ill be d eterm in ed by the ability
of those ru le s to fa c ilita te the e x p re ssio n of p a rtic u la r m eanings. Since
the p a rtic u la r m eaning o r m eanings an u tteran ce conveys depends in
larg e p a rt on context, the child will acq u ire ru le s th at re la te quanta of
p urely lin guistic knowledge to contexts. In p a rtic u la r, he w ill acquire
p rin cip les fo r d isam biguating u tte ran c e s, which p rin c ip le s w ill re fe r
c ru cially to context. Note th at th is would provide som e explanation
fo r why ch ild ren have such rela tiv e difficulty m a ste rin g 'm ean in g less'
a sp ects of g ra m m a r, such as gender.
The g e n e ra liz a tio n s I have stated in p rev io u s c h a p te rs have
rela te d b eliefs of a sp eak er to the syntactic and sem an tic shape of
u tte ran c e s the sp eak er m ight produce. In fact, a ll a sp ec ts of context
can and should be re p re s e n te d only in te rm s of the effect they have on
the belief sy stem s of d isc o u rse p a rticip a n ts. T his dependence on b e
lief sy stem s h as the d e sira b le consequence of allow ing us to state the
p rin cip les of g ram m ar as relatio n sh ip s betw een b e lie fs and sentences.
We do not have to in d icate anything about those in fin itely v ariab le con
tex ts which cau sed B loom field to r e tr e a t fro m the issu e of m eaning.
We do not have to w o rry about stating m eans of selectin g ling u istically
salien t fea tu re s fro m nonlinguistic environm ents. What we need w orry
about is the e m p iric a l issu e of deciding what b e lie fs a re law fully r e
lated to what sen ten ces o r c la s s e s of sen ten ces.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C onclusion
In p revious c h ap ters I have tre a te d c e rta in lin g u istic p ro b lem s
with th is view of g ram m ar im p licit. The fact th at any reaso n ab ly a d e
quate gen erativ e g ram m ar d e te rm in e s a m uch h ig h er incidence of
am biguity than is o bserved in the actu al use of language suggested the
sta te m e n t of c e rta in p rin cip les of disam biguation. W hether th ese
p rin c ip le s a re reg ard ed as asp ec ts of p erfo rm an ce o r com petence I
cla im to be irre le v a n t--th e e m p iric a l evidence supporting th ese p r in
cip le s is , I believ e, at le a s t as stro n g as th at supporting extant c o m
p etence m od els.
I have in addition stated c e rta in ru le s of im p licatio n which
would have the effect of reducing the am ount of am biguity p red icted by
a com petence m odel th at was consonant with those ru le s. This h as the
virtu e of recognizing the obvious im p o rtan ce of context in the in te r p re
tatio n of actual sen ten ces. Though I have not provided m uch in the way
of sta te m e n ts about the asp ects of context th at a re relev an t in d e te r
m ining the application and nonapplication of th ese ru le s , I have at
le a s t provided a fram ew o rk which could in co rp o rate c ru c ia l asp ec ts
of context. This is som ething extant com petence m odels a re incapable
of doing.
In stating se v era l of my p rin c ip le s and ru le s I em ployed c r u
cia lly the notions of sp eak er and h e a re r and the beliefs of each. L e st
it be thought th at I am advocating th e p o sition th at lin g u istics should be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
a 'th eo ry of e v e ry th in g ', le t me point out th at my d iscu ssio n s have
involved patently closed se ts of b eliefs. F o r exam ple, in d iscu ssin g
the in te rp re ta tio n of questions designed to e lic it a v erb al resp o n se , I
.m aintained th a t one rele v a n t dim ension co n sisted of the a d d re s s e e 's
opinion of the q u e stio n e r's belief reg ard in g the rela tio n sh ip of the
a d d re sse e to the answ er to the question. The b eliefs with p o ssible
relev an ce co n sisted of a set of th ree: (1) the sp eak er b elieves h is ad
d re s s e e knows the an sw er, (2) the sp eak er b eliev es h is a d d re sse e does
not know the an sw er, and (3) n e ith e r (1) nor (2). Ignoring the issu e of
d e g re e s of b elief (which m ay be in ap p ro p riate, but is unavoidable at
p rese n t), one and only one of (l)-(3 ) m u st be tru e of any qu estio n er
when he ask s a question. In the future it should be p o ssible to f e r r e t
out additional closed se ts of b eliefs rele v a n t to the in te rp re ta tio n of
sen ten ces.
All of the foregoing h as been designed to suggest a p a rtic u la r
approach to g ram m ar, nam ely, th at g ram m ar be view ed as a statem en t
of all those g e n eralizatio n s (in tern alized quanta of knowledge) which
enable people to com m unicate with one another. This view co n flicts,
to a larg e ex ten t at le a s t, with the tra d itio n a l sep aratio n of com petence
land p erfo rm an ce. Since I am suggesting th at a sp ec ts of p erfo rm an ce
a re phylogenetically resp o n sib le for the shape of com petence, I do not
re g a rd th is conflict as in any way u n d esirab le. I believe we need (that
is , I believe available e m p iric a l evidence dem ands) a th eo ry of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
g ram m ar th at tak es account, in a d ire c t and ex p lic it fash io n , of the
notions sj ta k e r, h e a r e r , and co n tex t, and has as its goal a c h a ra c te ri
zation of the com m unication s itu a tio n --in sh o rt, a g ra m m a r of d is-
I cour se. This g ram m ar w ill g ran t the notions ap p ro p riate resp o n se and
ap p ro p riate challenge a po sitio n of im portance equal to th at tra d itio n
ally accorded the sentence. The ru le s and p rin c ip le s I have stated in
previous c h a p te rs a re , I believ e, elem en ts of such a g ram m ar.
I think it p ru d en t to m ention in th is connection th at se v e ra l lin
g u ists have, in the p a st few y e a rs , d isco v ered a v a rie ty of apparently
valid, apparently lin g u istic, g en eralizatio n s which se rv e e ith e r (1) to
re la te sentences to one another in a way not obviously w ithin the scope
of tra d itio n a l g en erativ e g ram m ar (e .g . , rea so n a b le n e ss conditions
[G ordon and Lakoff, 1971]), o r (2) to re la te sen ten ces to sem antic
in te rp re tatio n s th at cannot be m otivated sy n tactically (e .g . , c o n v e rsa
tional postu lates [G ordon and Lakoff, 1971]; conditional p erfectio n ,
in fe rre d cau satio n [G eis and Zw icky, 1971; H e rin g e r, 1971]). These
g en eralizatio n s a ll in v ite the statem en t of conditioning fa c to rs in con
tex t. What is needed now is an investigation of th o se a sp ec ts of context
th a t determ in e the app licab ility of such ru le s and p rin c ip le s. Such an
investig atio n would, I b eliev e, rev e a l g e n eralizatio n s th a t should be of
in te re s t not only to the lin g u ist, but to the psych o lo g ist, cu ltu ral an
th ro p o lo g ist, and so cio lo g ist as w ell.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
v is à v is th e fu n c tio n s of c o m m u n ic a tio n s y s te m s , see C h a s e , 1966.
^A n e x a m p le of a s y s te m th a t is c a p a b le of en co d in g in fin ite ly
m an y d i s c r e te and d iffe re n t m e s s a g e s in a t r i v ia l w ay w ould be a s y s
te m c a p a b le of en co d in g on ly s e n te n c e s lik e I know th a t H a r r y lik e s m e ,
I know th a t I know th a t H a r r y lik e s m e , an d so on.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
R E F E R E N C E S
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
R E F E R E N C E S
B ach , E m m o n , and H a r m s , R o b e r t T. U n iv e rs a l s in L in g u is tic
T h e o ry . New Y o rk : H o lt, R in e h a rt and W in sto n , In c. , 1968.
S e v e r , T h o m a s G. " P e r c e p tu a l S tra te g ie s an d th e C o m p e te n c e -
P e r fo r m a n c e I s s u e ." In A d v a n c e s in P s y c h o lin g u is tic s , pp.
4 -3 0 . E d ite d by G iovanni B. F l o r e s - D 'A r c a is and W illem J .
M . L e v e lt. New Y o rk : A m e ric a n E ls e v ie r P u b lis h in g C o m
p a n y , 1970.
B lo o m , L . M . "L an g u a g e D ev e lo p m e n t: F o r m an d F u n c tio n in E m e r g
in g G r a m m a r s ." U n p u b lish ed d o c to r a l d is s e r ta tio n , C o lu m b ia
U n iv e rs ity , 1968.
B lo o m fie ld , L e o n a rd . L a n g u a g e . N ew Y o rk : H o lt, R in e h a rt and
W in sto n , In c. , 1933.
B lu m e n th a l, A. L . " P ro m p te d R e c a ll of S e n te n c e s ." J o u rn a l of V e rb a l
L e a rn in g and V e rb a l B e h a v io r 6 (1967): 2 0 3 -2 0 6 .
B lu m e n th a l, / L . , and B o a k e s, R . " P ro m p te d R e c a ll of S e n te n c e s ."
J o u rn a l o f V e rb a l L e a rn in g an d V e rb a l B e h a v io r 6 (1967): 6 7 4 -
676.
B o w e rm a n , M e lis s a F . E a r ly S y n ta c tic D e v e lo p m e n t. C a m b rid g e :
C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1973.
B r e s n a n , J . W. "O n C o m p le m e n tiz e rs : T o w ard a S y n ta ctic T h e o ry of
C o m p le m e n t T y p e s ." F o u n d a tio n s o f L an g u ag e 6 (1970): 2 9 7 -
321.
B u n g e , M a rio . T he M yth of S im p lic ity . E n g lew o o d C liffs , N ew J e r
se y : P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1963.
C h a s e , R ic h a rd A llen . " E v o lu tio n a ry A s p e c ts of L an g u ag e D e v e lo p
m e n t an d F u n c tio n ." In T he G e n e s is of L a n g u a g e , pp. 2 5 3 -2 7 1 .
E d ite d by F r a n k S m ith and G e o rg e A . M ille r . C a m b rid g e :
M . I. T . P r e s s , 1966.
124
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e copy rig h t ow ner. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n p ro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
C h ild e , V. G o rd o n . M an M a k es H im se lf. N ew Y o rk and T o ro n to :
T he N ew A m e ric a n L ib r a r y , 1951.
C h o m sk y , Noéim. "R e v iew of S k in n e r's V e rb a l B e h a v io r." L an g u ag e
35 (1959): 2 6 -5 8 .
_. A s p e c ts of th e T h e o ry of S y n tax . C a m b rid g e : M .I . T.
P r e s s , 1965.
. L a n g u a g e an d M ind. New Y o rk : H a r c o u r t, B ra c e &
W o rld , In c . , 1968.
. "D e e p S tr u c tu r e , S u rfa c e S tru c tu re , an d S e m an tic I n te r
p r e ta tio n ." U n p u b lish e d p a p e r, In d ia n a L in g u is tic s C lu b , 1969.
(M im e o g ra p h e d . )
. "S o m e E m p ir ic a l I s s u e s in th e T h e o ry of T r a n s f o r m a tio n a l
G r a m m a r ." In G o a ls of L in g u is tic T h e o r y , pp. 6 3 -1 0 3 . E d ite d
by S ta n le y P e t e r s . E n g lew o o d C liffs , N ew J e r s e y : P r e n tic e -
H a ll, In c . , 1972.
_, and H a lle , M o r r i s . The Sound P a t te r n of E n g lis h . New
Y o rk , E v a n s to n and London: H a r p e r cuid R ow , 1968.
C u rie , E v e . M a d am e C u r i e . New Y ork: D o u b le d a y -D o ra n , 1937.
E c h o ls, J o h n M . , and S h a d ily , H a s s a n . A n I n d o n e s ia n -E n g lis h D ic
t io n a r y . I th a c a , N ew Y o rk : C o rn e ll U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1963.
F illm o r e , C h a r le s . "T h e C a s e fo r C a s e ." In U ni v e r s a i s in L in g u is tic
T h e o r y , pp. 1 -8 8 . E d ite d by E m m o n B a c h an d R o b e rt T.
H a r m s . N ew Y o rk : H o lt, R in e h a rt and W in sto n , In c. , 1968.
" T o w a rd a M o d e rn T h e o ry of C a s e ." In M o d e rn S tu d ie s in
E n g lis h , pp . 3 6 1 -3 7 5 . E d ite d by D av id A . R e ib e l and S a n fo rd
A . S c h a n e . E n g lew o o d C liffs , New J e r s e y : P r e n tic e - H a ll,
I n c . , 1969.
. " T h e G r a m m a r of H ittin g and B r e a k in g ." In R e a d in g s in
E n g lis h T r a n s f o r m a tio n a l G r a m m a r . E d ite d by R o d e ric k A.
J a c o b s an d P e t e r S. R o se n b a u m . W a lth a m , M a s s a c h u s e tts :
G inn a n d C o m p a n y , 1970.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
126
F l o r e s - D 'A r c a is , G iovanni B. , an d L e v e lt, W illem J . M ., e d s .
A d v a n c e s in P s y c h o lin g u is tic s . New Y o rk : A m e ric a n E ls e v ie r
P u b lis h in g C o m p an y , In c. , 1970.
F o d o r, J e r r y A. , and K a tz , J e r r o ld J . , e d s . The S tru c tu re of L a n
g u a g e s: R e a d in g s in th e P h ilo s o p h y of L a n g u a g e . E n g lew o o d
C liffs , New J e r s e y : P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1964.
G e is, M . , and Z w ick y , A. M . "O n In v ite d I n fe r e n c e s ." L in g u is tic
In q u iry 2 (1971): 5 6 1 -5 6 6 .
G o rd o n , D av id , and L ak o ff, G e o rg e . " C o n v e rs a tio n a l P o s tu la te s ."
P a p e r s f ro m th e S ev en th R e g io n a l M e etin g , C h icag o L in g u is tic
S o c ie ty , pp. 6 3 -8 4 . C h icag o : D e p a rtm e n t of L in g u is tic s ,
U n iv e rs ity of C h ic a g o , 1971.
G r e e n b e rg , J o s e p h H. , ed . U n iv e rs a ls of L a n g u a g e . 2d ed . C a m
b rid g e : M .I. T. P r e s s , 1966.
G ric e , H . P . "T h e L o g ic of C o n v e r s a tio n ." U n p u b lish e d m a n u s c r ip t.
U n iv e rs ity of C a lifo rn ia a t B e rk e le y , 1968. (T y p e w ritte n . )
H e r in g e r , J a m e s T. "Som e G r a m m a tic a l C o r r e la te s of F e lic ity C o n
d itio n s and P r e s u p p o s itio n s ." O hio S tate W o rk in g P a p e r s No.
11. C o lu m b u s: Ohio S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1971.
H o c k e tt, C h a r le s . "T h e P ro b le m of U n iv e rs a ls in L a n g u a g e ." In
U n iv e rs a ls of L a n g u a g e , pp. 1 -2 9 . 2d ed . E d ite d by J o s e p h
H . G re e n b e rg . C a m b rid g e : M .I . T. P r e s s , 1966.
H o u s e h o ld e r, F . W. "P h o n o lo g ic a l T h e o ry : A B r ie f C o m m e n t."
J o u rn a l of L in g u is tic s , 2 (1966): 9 9 -1 0 0 .
J a c k e n d o ff, R ay S. S e m an tic I n te r p r e ta tio n in G e n e ra tiv e G r a m m a r .
C a m b rid g e : M .I. T. P r e s s , 1972.
J a c o b s , R o d e ric k A. , and R o s e n b a u m , P e t e r S. R e a d in g s in E n g lis h :
T r a n s f o r m a tio n a l G r a m m a r . W a lth a m , M a s s a c h u s e tts : G inn
an d C o m p an y , 1970.
J a k o b o v its , L eo n A. , and M iro n , M u rr a y S. , e d s . R e a d in g s in th e
P s y c h o lo g y of L a n g u a g e . E n g lew o o d C liffs , N ew J e r s e y :
P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1967.
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n p ro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
K ac, M ic h a e l. " C la u s e s of S aying and th e I n te r p r e ta tio n of b e c a u s e ."
L an g u ag e 48 (1972): 6 2 6 -6 3 2 .
K a tz , J e r r o ld . " M e n ta lis m in L in g u is tic s ." In R e a d in g s in th e P s y
ch o lo g y of L a n g u a g e , pp. 7 3 -8 4 . E d ite d by L eo n A. J a k o b o v its
and M u rr a y S. M iro n . E n g lew o o d C liffs , N ew J e r s e y :
: P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1967.
K a tz , J e r r o ld J . , an d F o d o r , J e r r y A. "T h e S tru c tu re of a S e m an tic
T h e o ry ." In T he S tru c tu re of L a n g u a g e s: R e a d in g s in th e
P h ilo so p h y of L a n g u a g e , pp. 4 7 9 -5 1 8 . E d ite d by J e r r y A.
F o d o r and J e r r o ld J . K a tz . E nglew o o d C liffs , N ew J e r s e y :
P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1964.
L a s h le y , K. S. "T h e P r o b le m of S e r ia l O r d e r in B e h a v io r." In
P s y c h o lin g u is tic s , pp. 1 8 0 -1 9 8 . E d ite d by Sol S a p o rta . New
Y o rk : H o lt, R in e h a rt and W in sto n , In c. , 1961.
L u c e , R . D. ; B u sh , R . R . ; and G a la n te r , E . , e d s . H an d b o o k of M a th
e m a tic a l P s y c h o lo g y . V ol. 2. New Y o rk : Jo h n W iley & S ons,
I n c . , 1963.
M cC aw ley , J a m e s D. "T h e R o le of S e m a n tic s in a G r a m m a r ." In
U n iv e rs a ls in L in g u is tic T h e o ry . E d ite d by E m m o n B ach and
R o b e r t T . H a r m s . New Y ork: H o lt, R in e h a rt and W in sto n ,
In c. , 1968.
M ille r , G. A. , and C h o m sk y , N. " F in ita ry M o d e ls of L an g u ag e
U s e r s ." In H andbook of M a th e m a tic a l P s y c h o lo g y , pp. 4 1 9 -4 9 1 .
V ol. 2. E d ite d by R . D. L u c e , R . R . B u sh , and E . G a la n te r .
N ew Y o rk : Jo h n W iley & S o n s, 1963.
P e t e r s , S ta n le y . G o als of L in g u is tic T h e o ry . E n g lew o o d C liffs , New
J e r s e y : P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. , 1972.
R e ib e l, D avid A . , and S c h a n e , S an fo rd A. , e d s . M o d e rn S tu d ie s in
E n g lis h . E n g lew o o d C liffs , New J e r s e y : P r e n tic e - H a ll, In c. ,
1969.
R o se n b a u m , P e t e r S. The G ra m m a r of E n g lis h P r e d ic a te C o m p le m e n t
C o n s tru c tio n s . C a m b rid g e : M . I. T. P r e s s , 1967.
S a c h s, J . S. "R e c o g n itio n M e m o ry fo r S y n ta ctic and S e m an tic A s p e c ts
of C o n n e c ted D is c o u rs e ." P e r c e p tio n and P s y c h o p h y s ic s 2
(1967): 4 3 7 -4 4 2 .
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e co p y rig h t o w n er. F u rth e r re p ro d u ctio n pro h ib ited w ithout p erm issio n .
S aporta, Sol, ed. P sych o lin g u istic s . New York: Holt, R in eh art and
W inston, Inc. , 1961.
S arum paet, J. P. , and M ackie, J. A. C. Introduction to B ahasa
Indonesia. M elbourne, A u stra lia : M elbourne U niv ersity
P r e s s , 1966.
Savin, H. B. , and Perchonock, E. "G ram m atical S tru ctu re and the
Im m ediate R ecall of E n g lish S en ten ces." Jo u rn al of V erbal
L earn in g and V erbal B eh av io r, 4 (1965): 348-353.
S ear le , John. Speech A cts. C am bridge: C am bridge U n iv ersity P re ss ,
1970.
Slobin, Dan. "U n iv ersals of G ram m atical Developm ent in C h ild re n ."
In A dvances in P sy c h o lin g u istic s, pp. 174-186. E dited by
Giovanni B. F lo re s -D 'A rc a is and W illem J. M. L evelt. New
Y ork: A m erican E lse v ie r Publishing Com pany, Inc. , 1970.
P sy c h o lin g u istic s. Glenview , Illin o is and London: Scott,
F o re sm a n and Com pany, 1971.
Sm ith, F ra n k , and M ille r, George A. The G enesis of Language.
C am bridge: M .I. T. P r e s s , 1966.
W olff, John. "A G ram m ar of Indonesian." Unpublished m an u sc rip t,
C o rn ell U niversity. (M im eographed. )
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

PDF

On the nature of particles in Japanese and its theoretical implications

PDF

An analysis of United States overseas English language policy, 1938-1990

PDF

The phonemics and morphology of Hokkaido Ainu

PDF

Correspondence and faithfulness constraints in optimality theory: A study of Korean consonantal phonology

PDF

Second language learners' punctuation: Acquisition and awareness

PDF

Evaluating heaviness: Relative weight in the spoken production of heavy-NP shift

PDF

Second language acquisition of English double object construction by Korean speakers.

PDF

City correspondence: Text and photograph in modern Paris and New York

PDF

On the representation and licensing of Q and Q-dependents

PDF

Not a bedspread, but a counterpane: Under the covers with gay men and aristocrats in twentieth century British literature.

PDF

Roman Jakobson's poetic function of language: The historic theory of equivalence projections from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.

PDF

The translation of tragedy into imperial Rome: A study of Seneca's "Hercules" and "Oedipus"

PDF

The syntax of the Chinese BA-constructions and verb compounds: A morphosyntactic analysis

PDF

Preview of the vanishing hero: a study of the protagonists in Jacobean drama

PDF

Rhetorical abstraction as a facet of expected response: A structural equation modeling analysis

PDF

In the event of focus

PDF

The act and the word: A study of abstraction versus the concrete in the work of Albert Camus

PDF

Representation of focus and presupposition in Japanese

PDF

Language services planning in the banking industry: An example of unplanned language policy

Asset Metadata

Creator Flynn, Terrence Michael (author)

Core Title Language and context: toward a model of psycholinguistic competence

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-451522

Unique identifier UC11352731

Identifier 7426027.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-451522 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7426027-0.pdf

Dmrecord 451522

Document Type Dissertation

Rights FLYNN, TERRENCE MICHAEL

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA