Showing papers by "George Lakoff published in 1972"

Structural Complexity in Fairy Tales

Abstract: The Sfudy Of Man, 30%. I {€§?2}; $28-$53; gnxm‘ ENS? C0 Structural Cospiexity is Fairy isles George P. Lakof£* PREFACE This is an inquiry into the structure of discourse through the investigation of an interesting subset of discourses ~~ Russian Fairy Tales. I assume that the study of discourse is ultimately to be part of a formalized theory of linguistic structure. I“sha11 endeavor to show that any adequate theory of the structure of fairy tales must share many formal properties with the transformational linguistic theory that has so far been prooosed by Noam Chomsky and his cow workers. Such a result would be of psychological interest, for it would indicate that an adequate model for the bearer and speaker of the sentences of a language could also be used to describe§ at least in part, the human ability to produce and understand discoursesa This might ultimately Show that the human mind is an extremely efficient device which uses essentially the same mechanism for constructing and undersiasding complicatefi discourses as it uses for constructing and understanding iadivieual seetencesg %This paper was sriteee is i§§e while my zemoze escestozg George P? Lakoffr was s graduate siudeet at Eeeiaaa Eniversityr 1 tree: that that eponymoss wozthy would tske it as so eisservice test I as angels to find myself is total agreement sow with shat he wrote then; though there is e certsie selsacholy pleasurefi E own, in rewreeeisg even those eassages where we most iififerr ~=~§eorge Laksff, finiversity of California? Eeskeleso

The Arbitrary Basis of Transformational Grammar

Abstract: THE ARBITRARY BASIS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR GEORGE LAKOFF University of Michigan Baker & Brame, in this issue of LANGUAGE, correctly observe that, in three of the cases cited in my paper on global rules (Lakoff 1970), the effect of global rules can be obtained by the use of ad hoc coding mechanisms using arbitrary gram- matical elements, in one case an infinite number of such elements. This raises the question of whether the elements used in grammatical descriptions should be ar- bitrary or whether they should have a natural basis. In addition, Baker & Brame incorrectly claim in three other cases to be able to handle global phenomena within the Aspects theory. In each case they use apparatus that goes beyond that theory. Moreover, they claim that a theory of global grammar is necessarily 'more powerful' than the Aspects theory and their proposed extensions. This is shown to be false.* Baker & Brame 1972, in their reply to my paper on global rules (Lakoff 1970) claim that the phenomena discussed in that paper can and should be handled differently, and that a uniform global treatment of those phenomena was not warranted. Their proposals fall into two classes. In three of the cases (arguments 1, 3, and 4), they propose an ad hoc extension of the Aspects theory which has the effect of introducing arbitrary markers in order to code global phenomena. In the other four cases, their proposed re-analyses are based on still other changes in the Aspects theory. The general issues raised are (1) whether the elements used in grammatical descriptions should be arbitrary or should have a natural basis,' and (2) whether global grammar is necessarily 'more powerful' than either their alternative proposals or the classical theory of transformational grammar. I will take up the issues in that order. ARBITRARY MARKERS AND CODING 1.1. ARGUMENT 1: GREEK CASE. BB second, a post-cyclic rule which assigns case to an adjective or participle on the basis of the case given to its co-indexed NP ... We conclude that it is possible to give a general formulation of principle 1 in the Aspects theory. Thus B&B claim that both rules are transformations. But the first rule they propose is in fact not a transformation: a rule that 'gives nouns and their modi- I would like to thank Paul Postal for reading an earlier version of this paper and mak- ing valuable suggestions for improvement. This work was partially supported by grant GS-2939 from the NSF to the University of Michigan, by a grant from the American Council of Learned Societies, and by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where I am in residence during 1971-72. 1 For another discussion of using arbitrary markers to code global rules, see Postal 1972. This content downloaded from 136.152.142.188 on Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:07:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Global Nature of the Nuclear Stress Rule

Abstract: lm1~\?J7tmw»'4Agw7vrr.WlWr9.\qa%L KATURE OE‘ TEE I{l{§€‘-LEAR STRESS RIFLE GEGRGE Eigxoye 3;q ll: 2;. recezze ;{}2.§a€iq3 Eiresnao claims to have shown that the Egelear Stress Rule ajeplies within the Sj;’I:i2.{3‘€ie3 cycle; rather than to eufiece streettize. this reeolt, she claims to heaze fozztxi evidegee for the existence of eee§ etmeoure, €01‘ the lexiealist hypothesis, and against Mo{§s.Wley’s E9?) analysis of English as a V80 language. B’s claims are analysed here in detail. It is shown that her claims are without a basis in foot: the Nuclear Stress Rule is 2. global rule which applies to surface structure, but it has a. global environment referring to other levels.* Bresnem 1971 has presented evidence that indicates the following: (1) The Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) must either (a) be ordered before Question Formation (QF) and Relative Clause Formatio11 (RCF), or (b) be 22. global rule with an environment ordered before QF and RCF. B claims to have shown la, as well as the following: (2) Question Formation and Relative Clause Formation are cyclic rules. (3) NSR applies within the syntactic cycle. (4) Evidence for the existence of deep structure and for the lexiealist hy~ pothesis is provided by 3. (5) McCawley’s 1970 analysis of English as a VSO language is disconfirmed by 3. I would like to provide evidence for the following: (6) The evidence for proposition 1 is by no means clear; at the very least there are grave difficulties with la, though some form of 1b seems to be viable (cf. §6 below). (7) B’s argument for 2 does not hold; there is still no evidence for it. (8) Since 3 depends on 2, there is no evidence for 3. (9) Since 4 depends on 3, there is no evidence for 4. Moreover, even if 3 were true, B’s argument for 4 would not hold. (10) Since 5 depends on 3, there is no evidence for 5. 1. B notes that NSR gives results like the following in simple sentences: (11) a. Sana read some} b. Sam read some books. Therefore; ‘:33’ her account, it will stress the following sentences correctly if it 339/fora: QF: e. W1:-aft. did. See} read? '33. Wlaieh “soaks did S311’: read? q This wwk was erxgsptarieziz ie gait i131 Gram: Cz'S~‘2§%3§ from are iiieiional Science Fonnda» {ion to the §Jni*—;e,rsii§; of Bziiefigan. I are grateful to eemee ‘1¥§eCa‘e'le3g for detailed corn» Eneais on an e:2.riie:* of tleis pager; 1 t’;:pl)ga:a;3l;ieal eiroplieitgg B:*es::an’e seperior numerals 1, 2, 3 are replaced in this ‘g}&§}€°E“ 35,2}: the acute, and graxre accents :espes1:ivel3—'.—§i;d,} 285