[B-Greek] phonological flow & syntactical structure
Eric Biggs
ericb at gracechurchreno.org
Thu Apr 28 11:56:14 EDT 2005
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:01:46 -0700, "Eric Biggs"
<ericb at gracechurchreno.org> said:
> 'Phonological flow' is my phrase. In considering what Noam Chomsky has
> written on syntacitcal structure and the way he uses phonology in this
> process, I believe I came up with it. I do not have the "Aspects of the
> Theory of Syntax" in front of me, (it's at home), so I can not quote
> right now, but I will on my next post.
James Tauber wrote:
I'd be interested in what concepts from Aspects you use the term
"phonological flow" for as I'm still not clear what you are using that
phrase to mean.
Note that Aspects is 40 years old and a great much has changed in
linguistics since then, including in Chomsky's own thinking. Much of
what is argued for in Aspects has seen been refined or even abandoned so
I would not read too much into the details of that one book. That is not
to say, of course, that one can't still gain new insights inspired by
some of the ideas. So I don't discourage you from reading Aspects - but
it has to be taken in context of work before and after.
I too don't have Aspects handy but I'm surprised that it would have that
much to say on how syntactic structures relate to phonology. I look
forward to any quotes you can provide.
Eric Biggs:
Chomsky in this work, on pgs. 79-83 speaks of "formal similiarities between
phonology and syntax". With this I looked at some rules of phonology
[+continuant] [+voiced]/-[+voiced], which is diagramed on pg. 82 as an
example of these similiarities. He goes on "These conventions allow us to
apply rules to any class of segements specifed by a given combination of
features, and thus to make use of the cross classification of segments
provided by the feature representation. These notions can be adapted
without essential change to representation of lexical categories and their
members, providing a very natural solution to the cross-classification
problem and, at the same time, contributing to the general unity of
grammatical theory". pg. 82.
My thoughts are in league with the general unity of grammmatical theory, not
the cross-classification problem he speaks of. This phonological rule is
mirrored latter on by syntactical rules using nouns. But in reviewing this
I realize that they are only similiarities, and thus I have a hard time
staying with my origianal thought's of "phonology governing syntax". I was
coming to this conclusion quickly I admit, thinking that if the rules of
syntax are the same of phonology then the origin of language being in the
poducing of sounds would then lead into the actual structure of the syntax.
But I admit, what I now review in Chomsky is only similiarities.
> My thought's on exegesis come from my understanding from Chomsky's
> syntactical structure, which seems to be linked to phonology. If
> phonology has any way of governing the syntax then knowlege of the way
> phomemes flow, would be useful in exegesis. Only if it has bearing on
> the syntax. Therefore I considered a more acurate pronunciation.
James:
I'm still unclear on what you mean by "flow" so it's hard for me to
comment too much but the notion of phonology governing syntax doesn't
sound like Chomsky to me. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Eric:
I labeled "phonological flow" with these thoughts on the phonology rules
seeing continuants and labials, sibulants and such all mingled together,
which I know become morphemes. In view of certain rules, though, I was
coming up with a flow to the production of phomemes.
> My understanding of generative grammar, in a nut shell, is that grammar
> itself is controled by language
James:
I don't know what you mean by "grammar itself is controlled by
language". If you mean that the internal knowledge of a language is
determined by the external language we experience, then that is almost
the opposite of what set Chomsky's thinking in the 50s and 60s apart.
Chomsky argued against a behaviourist view of language and instead
argued that humans have an innate understanding of "language" and, as
children, just pick up the specifics of the language they are acquiring.
In other words, a "universal" grammar already exists and is merely
parameterized based on the evidence the child experiences first learning
the language.
Eric:
I need to clean up my definintion. Though I thought Chomsky had this
(grammar itself is controlled by languagge) in view of generative grammar.
It seems what you have written is more understood than what I received from
Chomsky.
Eric Biggs
zealous student
Reno, NV
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list