Science topic

Theoretical Linguistics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Theoretical Linguistics, and find Theoretical Linguistics experts.
Questions related to Theoretical Linguistics
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
20 answers
Some philosophers/mathematicians (e.g., Tarski) laid some emphasis on construing a language that does not admit of contradictions, and were even ready to pay the price (if you want to call it thus) of excluding semantic terms and the like. I came to ask myself if it is actually a problem (rather than an advantage) of a language that it is able to express many things (including contradictions). What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Paraconsistent logics embrace contradictions to a certain extent rather than exclude them.
"A primary motivation for paraconsistent logic is the conviction that it ought to be possible to reason with inconsistent information in a controlled and discriminating way. The principle of explosion [= the classical rule than any proposition whatsoever follows from a contradiction] precludes this, and so must be abandoned." Wikipedia
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
6 answers
How knowledge theories affirm that knowledge is the obligatory component of linguistic competence
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Nata,
1. Why do you put this question?
2. Why do we use language? What's its function? How do we create language?
Do these questions help you to answer your question?
If "yes", may I ask "why do they help to answer your question"?
We always have to ask why  as the answer to this why is the criterion
we need to be able the verify the answer  we expect and hopefully get.
But your why is also needed by the person, that is willing to answer you.
Why is the WHY of your question needed?
Too complicated, now?
But if we do not understand to use the WHYs
we will get no usable answers.
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
10 answers
I'm interested in experiences you may have had on dealing with the prescriptive mindframe linguistics students bring into the classroom when they first begin their training, and which ways you have found to work best in addressing them.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some reflections by a corpus language planner:
a) If descriptive linguistics of a language has to describe what belongs to this language, a previous distinction from what does not belong to it has to be made: is not this a kind of "prescription" about what it is of this language and what it is not?
b) Some prescriptive rules not belonging to the child competence in the beginning of his/her schooling are finally adopted by him/her: do they, then, belong to his/her current competence?
c) Are linguists (and all language-related professionals) prescription-free when doing their job?
d) As Milroy/Milroy (Authority in language: investigating language prescription and standardisation, 1991, 11) say: “The study of linguistic authoritarianism is an important part of linguistics, and as linguists we feel an obligation to attempt to close the gap between specialist and non-specialist views on the nature and use of language. One reason for that is that attitudes to language have practical consequences […]. But the best reason for studying prescription is simply that it is interesting in itself.”
Best regards,
Joan Costa-Carreras
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
4 answers
I am currently writing my dissertation and I still find that the distinction between and among the terms is a little too ambiguous. I find myself using the word theme to refer to group of concepts/highest level code that makes up the parts of my theory. I am unsure if this is accurate.
Also, I have developed a concept diagram and unsure whether to call this theory or concept model? 
Expert help is greatly appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
I am not aware of any version of GT that uses either concepts or models as key terminology. Instead of models, you are likely to find theories. Instead of concepts, you are likely to find categories -- which can be confusing because other approaches to theory building use categories as merely as a basis for organizing codes.
I suggest you pick a particular version of GT to guide your work (e.g., Charmaz, Corbin & Strauss, Glaser, etc.) and then follow the terminology used there.
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
15 answers
Such models or theories help linguists to reconstruct obsolete lexical items believed to exist in the presumed proto-language. 
Relevant answer
Answer
1. The language organ- proposing the biological genesis of language.
2. Proto-world & the monogenesis of current languages.
Again, as above,  the nature-nurture dichotomy seems to be the predominant strands of thought. One can situate arguments quite reasonably along one of these veins. Citations have been given by some in this forum.
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
6 answers
I'm reading about context free grammar and i recognized how to eliminate the left recursion but i did not find out what is the problem with left recursion?? can any one explain 
Thanks in advance
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Ahmed
the problem with left recursion, from a computational linguistics point of view, is that it leads to infinite recursion, as mentioned in other posts. And, sadly, linguists do tend to write an awful lot of such rules, as the example below shows (a very naive DCG grammar for English relative clauses). If you 'consult' this grammar with swi-prolog, all will apparently run smooth because swi-prolog can deal with such recursive rules appropriately. If you submit the following  goal "s([the,man,that,he,knows,sleeps],[]).", you'll get "true" as an answer. But, if you ask swi-prolog to search for more results (";"), then you'll get an "Out of local stack" error because of the left-recursion. 
The general strategy is "transform your left-recursive rules into right-recursive ones". It means you must tweak your grammar to eliminate such left-recursive rules and transform them into right-recursive ones, with the help of an intermediate non-terminal (cf. for eg. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~kal/PLT/PLT4.1.2.html). 
From an algorithmic point of view, different approaches have been published, in order to deal with such left-recursive rules (as said earlier, this is how linguists spontaneously write formal grammars). If you're looking for algorithms, you can have a look at Bob Moore's paper http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/68869/naacl2k-proc-rev.pdf.
s --> np, vp.
np --> det, n.
np --> np, relc.%this is a left-recursive rule
relc --> pror, pro, vt.
vp --> vi.
vp --> vt, np.
det --> [the].
n --> [man].
pro --> [he].
pror --> [that].
vt --> [knows].
vi --> [sleeps].
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
4 answers
Hi there, I am trying to make an Indonesian linguistic forum. I am confused in categorizing and making a sub category in Linguistics sub forum. Could you tell me is there any another theory of linguistic branch? Because when I try to see wikipiedia, the linguistic branch is different. I am just curios if there is a formal global acceptance in making a linguistics branch. Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with Achilleas. You need to think about whether you are trying to cover all aspects of linguistics, or just elements of it. Forums often suffer because they make lots of sub-forums that no-one uses or too few sub-forums which makes it hard for people to find posts that are relevant to them. The solution tends to be see the response you get from the forum community and adjust your forum structure accordingly.
Or are you just making a forum to discuss Bahasa Indonesia, its dialects and other languages found and used in Indonesia? If so, then maybe they will be more suitable sub-forums.
  • asked a question related to Theoretical Linguistics
Question
74 answers
Fractals are the products of reiterative processes. The product of a simple multiplication is fed into a new operation. As a result, self-similar structures appear. This can be observed in many living organisms, where the splitting and continuous reproduction of cells generates self-similar patterns (cardiovascular system, neural networks, structure of the lung, trees, their branches and their leaves, etc.) As a linguist I am interested in the possibility of describing language as a fractal. Inasmuch the brain IS a fractal, language has also a chance of being one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi,
I think we should refrain from absolute statements like : "brain IS a fractal" or "language IS a fractal". In history of science it is very common to transfer some current (an trendy) concepts from different fields to explaining human behavior. Descartes famously describe humans as machines because that was the useful framework at his times. Currently commonly people think about processing in brain using computer analogy. More higher level models included "catastrophe theory" and fractals, random matrix, various network theories etc.. to explain function of brain and human behavior.
Each of this frameworks may explain some phenomena similarly as Bohr's planetary model of atom explains many experimental results. However, no physicist would say (even Bohr) that atom IS a planetary system.
The same should be said for application of any abstract model to explain any of the brain function.
So fractal theory may be useful to provide some framework for language, However, neither brain nor language IS a fractal.