5-1301msg1.txt

该程序实现的是一个垃圾邮件过滤系统

Subject: sum : native speaker intuition

several week ago i post a question about the current status of " native speaker intution " in our discipline . in particular , i wonder about the problem pose by variation in the interpretation of sentence . such variation sometime become apparent when i teach " modern english grammar , " a course that treat english syntax in nonformal , surface-structure term and primarily be aim at nonlinguist . in my post , i mention two sentence that give rise to vary intuition , but i will discuss in this summary only the first , viz . , " john ask mary to leave , " which one student claim be ambiguous between the read where mary would do the leave and that in which john would do the leave . she claim she get this second read by think something like " john ask to leave , " which clearly means that john would leave , and who he ask be mary . before i continue this discussion , i must point out that in my class i do not solicit interpretation of this sentence , nor do i expect any challenge to my read , which i essentially presuppose , assume - - erroneously - - that all my student see it as i do . perhap i do not make this point clear in my post to this list , since several respondent imply that problem will arise when we solicit interpretation or judgment , or indeed if we do " generative " grammar at all . however , though my approach to syntax in this course be not generative and i do not request an interpretation for this sentence , student sometime will challenge my assumption about mean . if the student involve be merely contentious , then i would chalk up such difference to personality and continue unabash . but describe my student as contentious in this case would certainly be a distortion . their observation arise , it seem to me , out of a genuine desire to come to grip with the issue . several respondent point out that recent research in syntax have have to deal with the thorny issue of interpretation . georgium green report that one of her student , tim william , " have just complete a dissertation on infinitive complement , and one of the major point be that , as illustrate by the reaction to . . . ' john ask mary to leave , ' the subject of the infinitive in so - call equus construction be not syntactically fix . ( hbe dissertation deal with articulate the pragmatic principle that govern the interpretation , and mislead us for so long into think that the interpretation be syntactically fix . ) " both dan alford and dale russell note that the interpretation of a sentence such as " john ask mary to leave " as mean " john ask mary 's permission to leave " could be enhance if there be a power / status differential between the two nps . dale write that " real-world stuff make us lean toward one [ read ] or the other to the point where we ' re not even aware of the potential ambiguity . " he provide an example of such real-world stuff in " johnny ask the teacher to go get a drink of water , " a sentence in which it be far easier to read the subject of the sentence as also be the subject of the infinitive . he point out that " we ' ve only change lexical item , make the first object someone who be likely to be in a position to grant permission , and the subject of the sentence someone who be likely to want to perform the action of the infinitival . " follow this line of inquiry , tony bex offer an enlighten pair of example : [ 1 ] the teacher ask the child to leave the room . [ 2 ] the child ask the teacher to leave the room . he contend that these sentence " be typically interpret pragmatically take into account perceive authority ; i . e . , in [ 1 ] the teacher tells the child to leave ; in [ 2 ] the child ask whether s / he can leave . " in either case , it be likely that it be the child who will be leave . i should note that this pair of example prove to be particularly amuse and illuminate to my student - - especially to those who , like me , find the ' permission ' read peculiar . tony 's example demonstrate to them to what extent pragmatic knowledge play a part in interpretation . the response to the infinitive problem constitute only one of several line pursue by my respondent . some , who like me teach undergraduate syntax course , comment on the difficulty a few student have with even rudimentary syntactic analysis ( e . g . , the subject / predicate split , often claim to be a universal strategy among english speaker ) . other comment on the familiar problem of intuition fatigue ( which could be sum up as " say a weird string 50 time and it sound good ; say a good string 50 time and it sound weird " ) . and still other take issue with the entire enterprise of a separate syntax , particularly of the generative variety , though by now it should be clear that any decontextualize sentence have the potential to give rise to more than one intepretation . in fact this very idea be discuss in carson schutze 's forthcome book , _ the empirical base of linguistic : grammaticality judgment and linguistic methodology _ , to be publish by university of chicago press in 1995 . in his post to me , carson contend that judgment datum " can provide real , useful datum , if we would just be more systematical and careful about how we collect them . of course speaker will differ on certain point . . . . the interest question be whether the range of variation we find be systematically constrain in way that interest theory of grammar can explain . " finally , one last thread be contribute by larry hutchinson , who mention the history of introspection in this century : " in point of fact , the first psychology lab have be set up by introspectionist , but they be completely take over by behaviorist and introspection dump . . . . linguist in the 50 's be pretty much under the sway of behaviorist , and emotionally against introspectionism . . . . but then the enthusiasm generate by chomsky just sweep away the behaviorist viewpoint , and along with it the contempt for the unguide use of speaker opinion . " i thank all of my respondent ( cite below ) for their insightful and helpful remark . i hope i have not distort their position in any serious way . marilyn silva respondent : dan alford , mark arnold , laurie bauer , kirk belnap , tony bex , scott delancey , jakob dempsey , susan ervin - tripp , georgium green , larry hutchinson , ingo plag , jim jewett , jule levin , chri li , steve matthew , dan maxwell , micheal palmer , jeanmarie rouhier , dale russell , mary ellen ryder , carson schutze , linda shockey , jacque steyn , and one respondent who prefer to remain anonymous