Bibliography I more generally, the concept "grammatical." Notice that in order to set the aims of... more Bibliography I more generally, the concept "grammatical." Notice that in order to set the aims of grammar significantly it is sufficient to assume q partial knowledge of sentences and non-sentences. That is. we may assume for this discussion that certain sequences of phonemes are definitely sentences, and that certain &her sequences are definitely non-sentences. In many intermediate c --ecide, when JJie . . grammar is set up in the simplest wav -< the h r sentences and excludes the clear non-sentences. This is a familiar feature of exp1ication.l A certain number of clear cases, then, will provide us with a criterion of adeauacv for any particular grammar. For a single Ian? taken in isolation, this ~rovides only a weak test of adequacy, since many different gampars may hknane the clear cases .vro~erly. This can be generalized to a very strong condition, however, if we insist that the clear cases be handled properly for each language by grammars all of which are constructed by the hat is. each grammar is related to the corpus of sentences in the language it describes in a way fixed in advance for all grammars by a given linguistic 'theory. We then have' a very strong test of adequacy for a 1ingui.stic theory that attempts to give a general explanation for the notion "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," and for the set of grammars constructed in ' accordance with such a theory. It is furthermore a reasonable requirement', since weare interested not only in particular languages, .. but also in the general nature of Language. There is a great deal more that can be said about this crucial topic, but this would take us too far afield. Cf. 5 6. On what basis do we actually go about separating grammatical sequences from ungrammatical sequences? I shall not attempt to Cf.,; for example, N. Goodman, The structure of appearance (Cambridge, 1951), pp: 5-6. ~o t i & that to meet the aims of grammar, given a linguistic theory,, it is sufficient to have a partial knowledge of the sentences (i.e., a corpus) of the language, since a linguistic theory will state the relation between the set of observed sentences and the set of grammatical sentences; i-e., it will define "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," certain properties of the observed sentences, and certain properties of.grammars. . Quine's formulation, a linguistic theory will give a general .explanation for what 'could' be in language on the basis of "what is plus simplicity of the laws whereby we describe and extrapolate -what is". (W. V. Quine, From a logicalpoint of view [Cambridge, 19531,~. 54). Cf. $ 6.1. ' ' * See my "Semantic considerations in grammar," Monograph no. 8, pp. 141-53 (1955), for a more detailed investigation of (117;). a Note that we cannot argue that "bank" in "the river bank" and "bank" in "the savings bank" are two occurrences of the same word, since this is precisely the'question under investigation. To say that two utterance tokens are occurrences of the same word is to say that they are not phonemically distinct, and presumably this is what thesynonymity criterion (1 17i) is supposed to determine for us.
Bibliography I more generally, the concept "grammatical." Notice that in order to set the aims of... more Bibliography I more generally, the concept "grammatical." Notice that in order to set the aims of grammar significantly it is sufficient to assume q partial knowledge of sentences and non-sentences. That is. we may assume for this discussion that certain sequences of phonemes are definitely sentences, and that certain &her sequences are definitely non-sentences. In many intermediate c --ecide, when JJie . . grammar is set up in the simplest wav -< the h r sentences and excludes the clear non-sentences. This is a familiar feature of exp1ication.l A certain number of clear cases, then, will provide us with a criterion of adeauacv for any particular grammar. For a single Ian? taken in isolation, this ~rovides only a weak test of adequacy, since many different gampars may hknane the clear cases .vro~erly. This can be generalized to a very strong condition, however, if we insist that the clear cases be handled properly for each language by grammars all of which are constructed by the hat is. each grammar is related to the corpus of sentences in the language it describes in a way fixed in advance for all grammars by a given linguistic 'theory. We then have' a very strong test of adequacy for a 1ingui.stic theory that attempts to give a general explanation for the notion "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," and for the set of grammars constructed in ' accordance with such a theory. It is furthermore a reasonable requirement', since weare interested not only in particular languages, .. but also in the general nature of Language. There is a great deal more that can be said about this crucial topic, but this would take us too far afield. Cf. 5 6. On what basis do we actually go about separating grammatical sequences from ungrammatical sequences? I shall not attempt to Cf.,; for example, N. Goodman, The structure of appearance (Cambridge, 1951), pp: 5-6. ~o t i & that to meet the aims of grammar, given a linguistic theory,, it is sufficient to have a partial knowledge of the sentences (i.e., a corpus) of the language, since a linguistic theory will state the relation between the set of observed sentences and the set of grammatical sentences; i-e., it will define "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," certain properties of the observed sentences, and certain properties of.grammars. . Quine's formulation, a linguistic theory will give a general .explanation for what 'could' be in language on the basis of "what is plus simplicity of the laws whereby we describe and extrapolate -what is". (W. V. Quine, From a logicalpoint of view [Cambridge, 19531,~. 54). Cf. $ 6.1. ' ' * See my "Semantic considerations in grammar," Monograph no. 8, pp. 141-53 (1955), for a more detailed investigation of (117;). a Note that we cannot argue that "bank" in "the river bank" and "bank" in "the savings bank" are two occurrences of the same word, since this is precisely the'question under investigation. To say that two utterance tokens are occurrences of the same word is to say that they are not phonemically distinct, and presumably this is what thesynonymity criterion (1 17i) is supposed to determine for us.
Uploads
Papers by Jaque Lucchesi