常数

IF 2.8 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language and Linguistics Compass Pub Date : 2023-08-07 DOI:10.1111/lnc3.12501
Fernando C. Alves
{"title":"常数","authors":"Fernando C. Alves","doi":"10.1111/lnc3.12501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Within the past 2 decades, probabilistic grammars have been put forward in the study of phonotactics as a necessary device to model gradient acceptability of lexical forms. This implicitly suggests that categorical grammars cannot even in principle account for such gradience. Most importantly, influential research has proposed that grammatical forms described by categorical grammars could be simply understood as by-products of probabilistic thresholds. Therefore, either implicitly or explicitly, categorical grammars are painted as not only empirically insufficient but also theoretically and formally redundant by this interpretation of probabilistic grammars in the domain of phonotactics. This paper provides a general overview of this recent debate and argues against the standard threshold interpretation for probabilistic grammars based on mathematical results, explicit axiomatic principles, and recent experimental evidence. In its place, I propose an interpretation for gradient grammars that solves apparent inconsistencies, combines the two types of grammar, accommodates previous technical contributions and data, and establishes a clear theoretical role that opens up further research directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47472,"journal":{"name":"Language and Linguistics Compass","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorical versus gradient grammar in phonotactics\",\"authors\":\"Fernando C. Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lnc3.12501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Within the past 2 decades, probabilistic grammars have been put forward in the study of phonotactics as a necessary device to model gradient acceptability of lexical forms. This implicitly suggests that categorical grammars cannot even in principle account for such gradience. Most importantly, influential research has proposed that grammatical forms described by categorical grammars could be simply understood as by-products of probabilistic thresholds. Therefore, either implicitly or explicitly, categorical grammars are painted as not only empirically insufficient but also theoretically and formally redundant by this interpretation of probabilistic grammars in the domain of phonotactics. This paper provides a general overview of this recent debate and argues against the standard threshold interpretation for probabilistic grammars based on mathematical results, explicit axiomatic principles, and recent experimental evidence. In its place, I propose an interpretation for gradient grammars that solves apparent inconsistencies, combines the two types of grammar, accommodates previous technical contributions and data, and establishes a clear theoretical role that opens up further research directions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language and Linguistics Compass\",\"volume\":\"17 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language and Linguistics Compass\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12501\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and Linguistics Compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12501","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的二十年里,概率语法被提出用于表音策略的研究,作为模拟词汇形式的梯度可接受性的必要手段。这隐含地表明,范畴语法甚至在原则上都不能解释这种等级性。最重要的是,有影响力的研究提出,分类语法描述的语法形式可以简单地理解为概率阈值的副产物。因此,无论是隐含的还是明确的,范畴语法都被描述为不仅在经验上不充分,而且在理论上和形式上都是多余的,因为这种对表音策略领域中概率语法的解释。本文对这场最近的争论进行了概述,并反对基于数学结果、明确的公理原理和最近的实验证据的概率语法的标准阈值解释。取而代之的是,我提出了一种对梯度语法的解释,它解决了明显的不一致性,结合了两种类型的语法,容纳了以前的技术贡献和数据,并确立了明确的理论作用,开辟了进一步的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Categorical versus gradient grammar in phonotactics

Within the past 2 decades, probabilistic grammars have been put forward in the study of phonotactics as a necessary device to model gradient acceptability of lexical forms. This implicitly suggests that categorical grammars cannot even in principle account for such gradience. Most importantly, influential research has proposed that grammatical forms described by categorical grammars could be simply understood as by-products of probabilistic thresholds. Therefore, either implicitly or explicitly, categorical grammars are painted as not only empirically insufficient but also theoretically and formally redundant by this interpretation of probabilistic grammars in the domain of phonotactics. This paper provides a general overview of this recent debate and argues against the standard threshold interpretation for probabilistic grammars based on mathematical results, explicit axiomatic principles, and recent experimental evidence. In its place, I propose an interpretation for gradient grammars that solves apparent inconsistencies, combines the two types of grammar, accommodates previous technical contributions and data, and establishes a clear theoretical role that opens up further research directions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language and Linguistics Compass
Language and Linguistics Compass LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Unique in its range, Language and Linguistics Compass is an online-only journal publishing original, peer-reviewed surveys of current research from across the entire discipline. Language and Linguistics Compass publishes state-of-the-art reviews, supported by a comprehensive bibliography and accessible to an international readership. Language and Linguistics Compass is aimed at senior undergraduates, postgraduates and academics, and will provide a unique reference tool for researching essays, preparing lectures, writing a research proposal, or just keeping up with new developments in a specific area of interest.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Truthmaker Semantics and Natural Language Semantics The Semantics and Expression of Apprehensional Modality The Roles of Neural Networks in Language Acquisition Challenges and Strategies for Acquiring Adjectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1