Language Form and Language Function (Language, Speech, and Communication)
โ Scribed by Frederick J. Newmeyer
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Leaves
- 460
- Category
- Library
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
The two basic approaches to linguistics are the formalist and the functionalist approaches. In this engaging monograph, Frederick J. Newmeyer, a formalist, argues that both approaches are valid. However, because formal and functional linguists have avoided direct confrontation, they remain unaware of the compatability of their results. One of the author's goals is to make each side accessible to the other. While remaining an ardent formalist, Newmeyer stresses the limitations of a narrow formalist outlook that refuses to consider that anything of interest might have been discovered in the course of functionalist-oriented research. He argues that the basic principles of generative grammar, in interaction with principles in other linguistic domains, provide compelling accounts of phenomena that functionalists have used to try to refute the generative approach.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Construal presents a new theory of sentence processing, one that allows a limited type of underspecification in the syntactic analysis of sentences. It extends what has arguably been the dominant theory of parsing (the garden-path theory developed b
Speech carries information about the structure and organization of language. Yet, speech is normally produced as a continuous stream without clearly demarcated boundaries between words. A fundamental problem for any language learner is to segment sp
This volume is worth it for the opening paper, Steve Abney's brilliant "Statistical methods and linguistics". Reading this paper in Chris Manning's statistical NLP class at CMU changed the way I think about the field. I believe it should be required reading for *linguists*. In my experience, most
What does our ability to use words--that is, our lexical competence--consist of? What is the difference between a system that can be said to understand language and one that cannot? Most approaches to word meaning fail to account for an essential as