Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplntx!curry
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Subject: Re: What's innate?
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <D4q85I.Ct5@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:12:54 GMT
References: <1995Feb28.141459.8696@oracorp.com> <3ivpnj$7s8@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 55

: In <1995Feb28.141459.8696@oracorp.com> (Daryl McCullough) writes:
: >What facts do you think linguists are confused about? Everyone agrees
: >that people don't naturally utter sentences that contain 100 nested
: >relative clauses. However, there are simpler explanations (processing
: >limitations, for example) this than saying that they are
: >ungrammatical.

Neil Rickert (rickert@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
: This began with my criticism of Pinker.  If Pinker simply wants to
: say:

: 	I have a theory about what is grammatical, and according to
: 	my theory sentences with nestings 100 deep are grammatical,
: 	even though people don't use such sentences;

: then that would be fine.  I would have no argument against that
: view.  But Pinker also wants to say:

: 	How dare those language mavens write about what is
: 	grammatical.  They have a theory about what is grammatical
: 	and are using that theory for their criticisms.  But what is
: 	grammatical is not based on a theory, it is based on usage.

: I find that to be inconsistent, and that is the basis for my
: objection.  Pinker can't have it both ways.  If, instead, Pinker had
: criticized the language mavens for inventing their own ideas about
: grammar instead of accepting the Gospel according to Chomsky, he at
: least would have avoided the inconsistency.

Sigh.
It isn't inconsistent.
Grammar is defined recursively. Within the recursive rules,
there is freedom to construct sentences out of grammatical parts.

What parts, and what sort of constructions, are grammatical,
is determined by usage - what *sounds* grammatical to educated
native speakers *is* grammatical.

But there is no *quantitative* restriction on grammaticality.
A sentence may, though constructed according to grammatical
rules, be either too ambiguous or too complex to be understood
(by some hearer). It's still grammatical - it's just bad style.
For example, those sentences which you who oppose Chomsky as you
conceive him consider to be ungrammatical may simply be difficult.
On the other hand, other both difficult and ungrammatical
sentences might be. See the difference?

Internal recursion is certainly grammatical in English, and
may be nested. The fact that this is unwieldly when overdone
does not make it ungrammatical.

This is a distinction of kind. It is you who are confused, not
Pinker.

Bo
