Non-member submission from [Begoqa Vicente <fipvicrb@vc.ehu.es>]

From: robyn carston (robyn@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 06:54:47 GMT

  • Next message: mjmurphy: "implicate/entails. just a thought"

    >Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:32:49 +0100 (BST)
    >To: relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk
    >Subject: rt and syntax

    >
    >Dear all,
    >
    >In connection with the issues Steve Nicolle raised regarding -among
    >other things- the relation between syntax and relevance theory, I would
    >like to say that Marjolein Groefsema showed in her relevance-based
    >(input) processing model that the anticipatory hypotheses that hearers
    >build on line could not be based on syntactic categories. This is
    >because the correspondence between syntactic labels and conceptual
    >categories is one-to-many, which would lead to a computational
    >explosion. She goes through the experimental literature and finds
    >problems with models which postulate an autonomous syntactic parser. As
    >many of you may know, she claims that lexical items give automatic
    >access to logical information on how to compute conceptual
    >representations and looks in detail at issues such as implicit
    >arguments, multiple centre-embedded sentences, filler-gap dependencies
    >and issues of acceptability.
    >
    >Begoqa Vicente
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --------------------------------------------
    Robyn Carston
    Department of Phonetics & Linguistics, UCL
    Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
    Tel: + 44 (0)20 7679 3174
    Fax: + 44 (0)20 7383 4108
    http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/home.htm
    ---------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 18:13:21 GMT