[yatou2008158]

hi, asking for help as well, who knows what is economy principle? is it usefull in vocabulary teahing ? how should we translate it into chinese?最简方案？语言经济原则？thanks a lot!

 

2008-12-03

---

yatou2008158

[coge...@gmail.com]

Hi, I am ,currently, thinking that the following might be the best one
to this question.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press

To be general(philosophically):The principle states that the
explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable
predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory---Occam.

Linguistically:Economy of derivation and Economy of representation are
used by Chomsky to present his understanding of features and strutures
of Language--- I dare not venture to give any explainations about
that piont.But I am always encouraging myself to read something about
the
relevance.

I wish i had not posioned the well if there is any.


Best regards,
cogentsun

On Dec 3, 10:27 pm, "yatou2008158" <yatou2008...@163.com> wrote:
> hi, asking for help as well, who knows what is economy principle? is it usefull in vocabulary teahing ? how should we translate it into chinese?最简方案？语言经济原则？thanks a lot!
>
> 2008-12-03
>

> yatou2008158

[Michael Ryan]

The questions get easier, as a simple Google search will now provide an answer. 

 

I find the best understanding [for me] of the economy principle flows from the theories surrounding the simplification of language.  This is why, for example, there are so many irregular verbs in English.  I hope I have demonstrated this in the previous sentence, as I had intended to use state of being and possession [this sentence] as the most commonly irregular verbs and immediately provide an application.  Thus, commonly used verbs subsequently become shorter and shorter.   Why use two morphemes if one will do?  People are lazy.

 

I do not think this helps in the teaching of language.  In other words, to tell a NNS of English they must work hard to learn irregular verbs, which are irregular because the NS shortens her/his language for economy/laziness - is probably not overly helpful.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Michael J. Ryan

Heilongjiang, China

[yatou2008158]

 

Thank you ,Ryan. your answer is very helpful , i was really in a loss when  i wanted to employ the economy principle in studying  polysemy acquisition . this seems to be more confused than i have expected.  a long way is ahead.

 

2008-12-04

---

yatou2008158

---

发件人： Michael Ryan

发送时间： 2008-12-04  20:58:34

收件人： linguist...@googlegroups.com

抄送：

主题： [linguistics@nwnu] Re:

[coge...@gmail.com]

最简方案的核心精神，就是要求语言学家摒弃武断的主张，重新思索过去生成语法所提出的假设，精简理论，防止原则和参数的数量过分膨胀。
最简方案有两个主要的研究目标：第一，简化语言学的理论；第二，探究人类语言如何以简单的操作方式运作。
“实体上的经济”所关心的是语言的本质的问题。有两大类型：“推导的经济性”和“表征的经济性”。前者主要关心在推导过程中语言所体现的简约运
作，而后者主要关心语言表征的简约性，例如没有羡余的成分，没有复杂的结构等等问题。
整体而言，最简方案的提出主要是针对原则与参数理论原有的一些具体操作和假设，不少问题都是从理论内部的立场出发，最简方案的价值往往只能从这个
理论内部来考虑。------以上文字来自网络。推敲推敲。

[国月赵]

有个想法：我们费心研究语言，除了达到认识的目的，能不能把我们的语言再加简化，正如20世纪初汉语由古文到白话文之变！

2008/12/9 coge...@gmail.com <coge...@gmail.com>

[yatou2008158]

I found this paper exciting! And many things in this paper will be discussed among us, so let's go! 

 

2008-12-10

---

yatou2008158

[heping]

to simplify language is not the purpose of language: language will be
simplified, or further elaborated in its own natural evolution
process.

On 12月9日, 下午11时59分, "国月赵" <zhaoguo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 有个想法：我们费心研究语言，除了达到认识的目的，能不能把我们的语言再加简化，正如20世纪初汉语由古文到白话文之变！
>

> 2008/12/9 cogent...@gmail.com <cogent...@gmail.com>

[高育松]

pidgin might be the simplist human langauge, but kids of those speaking pidgin speak creole instead, a language which is much more complicated in terms of phonology, voca, morphology and syntax. Creolization suggests that simplicity may not represent the direction of langauge evolution. In many cases, the reverse might be true. Another case in point is the development of Mandarin. Voca in Old Mandarin is monosyllabic, but many words in Modern Mandarin are dysyllabic, suggestive of a process of complication. Further, SVO is typical of Old Mandarin, but it is argued that Modern Mandarin acquires some properites of SOV, indicating complication as well.

2008/12/17 heping <wuh...@gmail.com>

--
Gao Yusong

Department of English language and Literature
Northwest Normal University
Lanzhou, China

13909428215
0931－7973040

[Michael Ryan]

What is a subject?  What is a verb?  What is an object?  This has always been my problem with pedagogic grammar and most other kinds.  They are construct laden, but appear to deny this problematization. 

 

What is the mother tongue of a pidgin speaker?  It is not pidgin.  This suggests a pidgin speaker, has as a minimum, two languages.  Thus, there are only bilingual speakers of any pidgin.  Thus, they posses a deep, dense and rich grammatical foundation.  Creole is more complicated, by way of definition, then the root pidgin language that preceded it.  Otherwise it is not Creole.  However, as to how many generations it requires to come into being, again, it is someone determining it has morphed beyond comprehensability in the root language.   The speaker, may now have only one unique to the area language.  I believe Papua-New Guinea is the once classic example of this.  However, to the speaker, they are now in a simplified linguistic position.  One complicated language, versus the bi-literacy of previous generations.  IMO.

 

I cannot speak to the case of Mandarin.  However, large corpus studies suggest that SVO is close to an urban myth in English.  It almost requires a written/oral breakdown for comparative purposes.  I do not believe that individual cases are completely useful.  The cases provide illustration, but are these exhaustive, can they be?  Do these cases represent "language in use"?  This is such a rich area for study, however, an area that appears to open up sentimental arguments.

 

What fun this was to write. 

 

Thank you.

 

Michael J. Ryan

Harbin, Heilongjiang,

2008/12/17 高育松 <gyu...@gmail.com>

--
Michael J. Ryan, Instructor Capilano U - Harbin U of Science &
Technology Harbin, Heilongjiang, China

[coge...@gmail.com]

IMO, minimalism is not really focused on the Form {minimalism},
Economy is not really the worldly meaning of "economy" .They are, all,
tending to the thoroughhood of universanity and explainablity. e.g.
E=mc^2. The question is "are there any kind of possibilities for
linguistics to get access to E=mc^2, taking language as 'the full
release model of energe'?" IMO, language can hardly be a mono-axile
direction---towards total simplisity or complexity. And I
have,subconciously noticed that mind, language and realis beings are
not meeting at the same final point taking reaction time into account
though they can be maximumly close to each other.Thus Sapir--Whorf
Hypothesis will totally come to its termination at the very beginning
when is was taken as a great hypothesis. Brain is the black hole in
the universe that having the gravitational field so intense that no
matter such as language or thinking can escape. Eyes, ears and mouth
are so presicely equiped on the broader hardware. A computational
system is a metaphor. Why metaphor?Because it is metaphor by which we
are living,Lackoff noticed that in twenty centuray.

> 2008/12/17 高育松 <gyus...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> > pidgin might be the simplist human langauge, but kids of those speaking
> > pidgin speak creole instead, a language which is much more complicated in
> > terms of phonology, voca, morphology and syntax. Creolization suggests that
> > simplicity may not represent the direction of langauge evolution. In many
> > cases, the reverse might be true. Another case in point is the development
> > of Mandarin. Voca in Old Mandarin is monosyllabic, but many words in Modern
> > Mandarin are dysyllabic, suggestive of a process of complication. Further,
> > SVO is typical of Old Mandarin, but it is argued that Modern Mandarin
> > acquires some properites of SOV, indicating complication as well.
>

> > 2008/12/17 heping <wuhp...@gmail.com>

[国月赵]

One year ago, I presented an idea here, which is to regard simplifying language as our purpose. Teachers and fellows told this is not a corret saying when i was confused then.Now, I found it wrong after reading a few books. Especially, Ji Xianling's and Gu Zhengkun's books help me have a clear mind about this question. I have learnt that many valuable elements of Chinese culture has been lost during the transition of Chinese from ancient to Madrine.In fact,  the more complicated of language, the more accurate mind we have, and the cleverer brain we have,too.

2008/12/9 国月赵 <zhaog...@gmail.com>

2008/12/9 coge...@gmail.com <coge...@gmail.com>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
---

Course Site: http://wuhpnet.googlepages.com/linguistics
Course Forum: http://groups.google.com/group/linguistics_nwnu
To post to this group, send email to linguist...@googlegroups.com

---
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Michael Ryan]

Dear Colleagues:

 

     The pragmatic approach to simplification of language [IMO] is made through "air speak".  This is the reduced English lexicon used by pilots and air traffic controllers.  The objective is safer air travel.  It has a track record of accomplishing the objective.

 

     The Orwellian view of simplified language for overt political purposes is made in the book 1984.  I am aware that this text portrays George Orwell's [Eric Blair] vision of a future dystopian world based on conflict between socialist societies.  Therefore its circulation has been limited.  As an overt political statement, it no doubt states the cynicism of the West towards the "real" objectives of the complete simplification of language. 

 

     Finally, certain governments have attempted to used "clear and simple" language in the drafting of laws, insurance policies and the like.  Here the objective is to allow the non-specialist to understand what it is they are agreeing to.  It is more difficult to see if it has met its objective of levelling the playing field for the technical specialist and the common citizen/consumer.  However, there is no attempt to use this approach in the field of culture.

 

   Thank you for the interesting discussion.

 

Michael J. Ryan

2009/12/12 国月赵 <zhaog...@gmail.com>

--

---
 
Course Site: http://wuhpnet.googlepages.com/linguistics
Course Forum: http://groups.google.com/group/linguistics_nwnu
To post to this group, send email to linguist...@googlegroups.com
 
---

--
Michael J. Ryan