Fawcett (2010: 75):
Next, I showed why diagrams consisting of system networks in which the realisation rules are shown as 'footnotes' on the features are not only inadequate for a large-scale grammar but that they also give a misleading picture of language. In other words, the existence of such diagrams should not be taken as evidence that the full set of components and outputs shown in Figure 4 is unnecessary.
Blogger Comments:
[1] This is misleading, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett did not show why the location of realisation rules (statements) in system networks is inadequate for a large-scale grammar, not least because the network he used in his argument was a small-scale network of his own devising which, for example, confuses lexical items with grammatical features.
[2] This is misleading, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett did not show that the location of realisation rules in system networks gives a misleading picture of language. Moreover, Fawcett's own alternative model (Figure 4) is invalidated by the fact that it locates categories of the same level of symbolic abstraction, grammatical features, at different levels of symbolic abstraction, meaning and form, depending on whether they are located in networks or in rules.
[3] To be clear, this provides Fawcett's motivation for arguing against the location of realisation rules (statements) in system networks: the fear that it invalidates his own model, whereas, in truth, what invalidates Fawcett's model is its own internal inconsistency — including its misconstrual of the relation between realisation rules and the structures that realise them as instantiation.
[2] This is misleading, because, as previously demonstrated, Fawcett did not show that the location of realisation rules in system networks gives a misleading picture of language. Moreover, Fawcett's own alternative model (Figure 4) is invalidated by the fact that it locates categories of the same level of symbolic abstraction, grammatical features, at different levels of symbolic abstraction, meaning and form, depending on whether they are located in networks or in rules.
[3] To be clear, this provides Fawcett's motivation for arguing against the location of realisation rules (statements) in system networks: the fear that it invalidates his own model, whereas, in truth, what invalidates Fawcett's model is its own internal inconsistency — including its misconstrual of the relation between realisation rules and the structures that realise them as instantiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment