| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » help! looking for a pdf book. |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Can anyone please give me a clue where I can look for a pdf version of
Cook $ Newson "Chomsky's Universal Grammar" ?
I need this book in electronic format in order to send extracts to
other students as the background reading.
I will be VERY grateful for any hint.
Best regards,
Lukasz. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tommi Nieminen |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hotairbrush@o2.pl kirjoitti:
[quote:00255c429c]Can anyone please give me a clue where I can look for a pdf version of
Cook $ Newson "Chomsky's Universal Grammar" ?
[/quote:00255c429c]
As it seems to be a regular, commercial publication:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=0631195564
....I don't think you can find it in electronic format.
(And why bother reading about UG? It's BS anyway  )
--
..... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~toniemin/ ....
Csak füvön élt a kis zebra,
de most rákapott a zabra;
végül is elvitték Szobra,
ott oktatják szebbre-jobbra.
-Devecseri Gábor-
..... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi .... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 2:48 am |
|
|
|
|
Thanx for the reply,
So you think that UG is BS, I was actually going to write my MA
on UG and GB (in context of Chomsky's philosophy) and now I really
started to think if it was a good choice (had my doubts earlier). Still
have time to decide on the subject of my MA. Both theories have some BS
elements and I really don't know what to do. Can anyone recommend the
most "useful" subject on linguistics? I wanted to write on Chomsky -
this is very important - comments, please.
Best regards,
Lukasz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tommi Nieminen |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hotairbrush@o2.pl kirjoitti:
[quote:f49cd312f5]So you think that UG is BS, I was actually going to write my MA
on UG and GB (in context of Chomsky's philosophy) and now I really
started to think if it was a good choice
[/quote:f49cd312f5]
Woops...! Okay, three things:
(1) Even if I personally think UG, and GB too, are BS, there are learned
opinions to the contrary.
(2) Never listen to anyone's opinions unless he backs them up with some
argument.
(3) Even downright BS, and maybe *particularly* that, deserves scholarly
attention and critique.
On UG, see eg. Bernard Comrie's brief critique of it in his Language
Universals and Linguistic Typology (1981).
--
..... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~toniemin/ ....
Csak füvön élt a kis zebra,
de most rákapott a zabra;
végül is elvitték Szobra,
ott oktatják szebbre-jobbra.
-Devecseri Gábor-
..... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi .... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tommi Nieminen wrote:
[quote:a431d73824]
hotairbrush@o2.pl kirjoitti:
So you think that UG is BS, I was actually going to write my MA
on UG and GB (in context of Chomsky's philosophy) and now I really
started to think if it was a good choice
Woops...! Okay, three things:
(1) Even if I personally think UG, and GB too, are BS, there are learned
opinions to the contrary.
(2) Never listen to anyone's opinions unless he backs them up with some
argument.
(3) Even downright BS, and maybe *particularly* that, deserves scholarly
attention and critique.
On UG, see eg. Bernard Comrie's brief critique of it in his Language
Universals and Linguistic Typology (1981).
[/quote:a431d73824]
Consider also that _just everyone_ writes about Chomsky.
(And a 25-year-old critique won't be hugely helpful today.)
Why not find some other linguist, with better ideas but less well known,
to follow up on? You appear to be writing from Poland. Do you know the
work of Jerzy Kurylowicz? By the time he came to the US and started
writing in English, he had become very difficult to interpret, and of
course his earlier work in Polish (and even his subsequent work in
French) is not as well known as it should be.
BTW he's one of those cosmopolitans who was said to have a foreign
accent in whatever language he spoke. I never got to hear/meet him (but
I did hear Roman Jakobson once).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hotairbrush@o2.pl wrote:
[quote:94c50cac49]I wanted to write on Chomsky - this is very important - comments,
please.
[/quote:94c50cac49]
O where art thou, Al Groce?
(Sorry Lukasz - ignore this)
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
First of all I would like to thank you for the replies. I have
noticed that this forum is created by people experienced in linguistics
which I wouldn't say about myself. However, it is already extremely
motivating for me and I hope I can have some contribution in this forum
in future.
.. In fact I am 25 and I don't have skills enough to change anything in
the field of linguistics by an MA thesis.
Despite a lot of doubts I already have about GB and even the general
idea behind describing the language using artificial means, I believe
Chomsky in a sense that no better theory of language could ever be
invented.
Sorry to go off-topic, thanks again.
Lukasz. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 4:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hotairbrush@o2.pl wrote:
[quote:3715650b58]
First of all I would like to thank you for the replies. I have
noticed that this forum is created by people experienced in linguistics
which I wouldn't say about myself. However, it is already extremely
motivating for me and I hope I can have some contribution in this forum
in future.
. In fact I am 25 and I don't have skills enough to change anything in
the field of linguistics by an MA thesis.
Despite a lot of doubts I already have about GB and even the general
idea behind describing the language using artificial means, I believe
Chomsky in a sense that no better theory of language could ever be
invented.
Sorry to go off-topic, thanks again.
[/quote:3715650b58]
Oh, dear, on the one hand you say you're a novice at linguistics, but on
the other you're sure that the best of all possible linguistic theories
has already been invented?
What Chomsky has been creating for fifty years is _mathematical models_
of language (and he changes them every decade or so). There is no
guarantee, and in many cases little likelihood, that they are remotely
like what actually goes on inside people's heads.
And surely figuring out what actually goes on inside people's heads is
better than building computers that can more-or-less produce the same
syntactic structures -- not that they can understand what they're
saying, of course?
(The funniest thing about 2001: A Space Odyssey is that in 1968 Clarke
and Kubrick thought that 33 years later on the one hand computers would
still fill up dozens of cubic meters, but on the other that they'd be
able to understand and speak idiomatic English. And lip-read, no less.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
on the one hand you say you're a novice at linguistics, but on
the other you're sure that the best of all possible linguistic theories
has already been invented?
I couldn't be sure - I said I just believe in it, have a feeling that
there is great potential behind it.
Whose theory of language would you find most tolerable? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
|
on the one hand you say you're a novice at linguistics, but on
the other you're sure that the best of all possible linguistic theories
has already been invented?
I couldn't be sure - I said I just believe in it, have a feeling that
there is great potential behind it.
Whose theory of language would you find most tolerable? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 6:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hotairbrush@o2.pl wrote:
[quote:0eca0286da]
on the one hand you say you're a novice at linguistics, but on
the other you're sure that the best of all possible linguistic theories
has already been invented?
I couldn't be sure - I said I just believe in it, have a feeling that
there is great potential behind it.
Whose theory of language would you find most tolerable?
[/quote:0eca0286da]
Surely a functional rather than a formal one!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tommi Nieminen |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
[quote:8ae1addbcb]But [Hockett's] maturest thoughts on the question are in *Refurbishing
Our Foundations* (Benjamins, 1987).
[/quote:8ae1addbcb]
That's a great tip! Thanks.
[quote:8ae1addbcb]I despise Sampson, for his politics
[/quote:8ae1addbcb]
I fully agree on that.
[quote:8ae1addbcb]Pike's book is a very small introduction to tagmemics, rather than an
overview of linguistic concepts.
[/quote:8ae1addbcb]
True but it's cunning in its way...
--
..... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~toniemin/ ....
Csak füvön élt a kis zebra,
de most rákapott a zabra;
végül is elvitték Szobra,
ott oktatják szebbre-jobbra.
-Devecseri Gábor-
..... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi .... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tak To |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:2b65334de2]What Chomsky has been creating for fifty years is _mathematical
models_ of language (and he changes them every decade or so).
[/quote:2b65334de2]
I would say a "procedural" or "computational" form of grammar.
[quote:2b65334de2]There is no
guarantee, and in many cases little likelihood, that they are
remotely like what actually goes on inside people's heads.
[/quote:2b65334de2]
I am not sure if Chomsky has actually claim his procedural
model reflects the actual actions of the brain (which his
disciples seem to believe in). At least initially he only
offers that by taking the procedural approach, the resulting
grammar is more concise.
[quote:2b65334de2]And surely figuring out what actually goes on inside people's
heads is better than building computers that can more-or-less
produce the same syntactic structures -- not that they can
understand what they're saying, of course?
[/quote:2b65334de2]
Are you taking the view of John "Chinese Room Problem" Searle
just to mock Chomsky?
[quote:2b65334de2](The funniest thing about 2001: A Space Odyssey is that in 1968
Clarke and Kubrick thought that 33 years later on the one hand
computers would still fill up dozens of cubic meters, but on the
other that they'd be able to understand and speak idiomatic
English. And lip-read, no less.)
[/quote:2b65334de2]
In filming 2001, Kubrick wanted the computers in the background
to "do somethong", so he got someone to write a program just to
spin all the tape drives.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tommi Nieminen wrote:
[quote:32bbfd2ec5]
Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
But [Hockett's] maturest thoughts on the question are in *Refurbishing
Our Foundations* (Benjamins, 1987).
That's a great tip! Thanks.
I despise Sampson, for his politics
I fully agree on that.
Pike's book is a very small introduction to tagmemics, rather than an
overview of linguistic concepts.
True but it's cunning in its way...
[/quote:32bbfd2ec5]
Ken Pike was a wonderful man. We met two or three times at LACUS
meetings (I finally got to see a "Pike Demonstration" in Chicago in 1993
-- where he takes a native speaker and shows how in 15 minutes he
elicits the phonemic system and some basic grammar with no language in
common -- but it wasn't quite the real thing, because he was rather deaf
by then and his sister did the phonetic transcriptions on the board for
him), and thereafter, once in a while I would get an envelope of new
offprints in areas he knew I'd be interested in. And at the end of that
meeting, he talked with me for about 20 minutes on the reasons for being
a Christian missionary in the Amazon.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Wright Sr. |
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tommi Nieminen <tommiDOTnieminen@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> wrote in
news:4Y0ee.16$Uf7.10@reader1.news.jippii.net:
(snip)
[quote:13b7dc44e0]To get personal (), I don't think language should be studied without
reference to the outside world: that leaves out all formalist theories
of language, Chomskyan included. Also I detest theories that situate
language in the brain: that leaves out Langackerian cognitivism.
[/quote:13b7dc44e0]
I certainly agree with the first sentence, but am confused about the
second. Do you mean that you detest theories that are 'only' situated in
the brain as opposed to what you said in the first sentence or is there
some other meaning?
Thanks
--
David Wright Sr.
Have you ever stopped to think, and
forgot to start again?
To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
