Glottopedia - User contributions [en]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:46:09Z

PaulSank: Stub marker removed

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

''Example 1:''
::E / V1K ] V1
A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

''Example 2:''
::u / oK ] o
/u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:44:50Z

PaulSank: minor correction

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

''Example 1:''
::E / V1K ] V1
A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

''Example 2:''
::u / oK ] o
/u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:44:26Z

PaulSank: minor correction

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

''Example 1:''
::E / V1K ] V1
 A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

''Example 2:''
::u / oK ] o
 /u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:43:55Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

''Example 1:''
 ::E / V1K ] V1
 A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

''Example 2:''
 ::u / oK ] o
 /u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:43:21Z

PaulSank: minor correction

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

''Example 1:''
 E / V1K ] V1
 A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

''Example 2:''
 u / oK ] o
 /u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:42:15Z

PaulSank: minor correction

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

E / V1K ] V1
 A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

u / oK ] o
 /u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Realizational formula

2018-07-26T01:41:16Z

PaulSank: Examples section added

A '''realizational formula''' is the type of algebraic statement that is appropriate for the description of structural relationships according to [[stratificational grammar|stratificational]] theory. A realizational formula bears a superficial resemblance to a rewrite rule. But unlike rewrite or mutation rules in a process description, realization formulae are not necessarily ordered. For example, a pair of formulae may be allowed to operate simultaneously, or they may be allowed to operate in either of the two possible orders.

===Examples===
In Monachi (Utoaztecan, California):

F1: E / V1K ] V1
A "chameleon vowel" (/E/) is realized as the vowel (V1) identical to the preceding vowel, with intervening consonant or consonant cluster (K).

F2: u / oK ] o
/u/ is realized as /o/ when preceded by /o/ plus consonant or consonant cluster (K).

===Source===
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

User:PaulSank

2018-04-17T05:02:39Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

J Paul Sank is an amateur. Majored in linguistics (an interdisciplinary major) at Ohio Wesleyan University, 1976-78. Audited linguistics courses at Rutgers University Camden, 2004-2008. Maintains a daily Twitter feed about linguistics [http://www.twitter.com/LingFan1 @LingFan1]. Also keeps adding terms to [http://studylove.org/ling/jpsgloss.html Sank's Glossary of Linguistics], an informal personal glossary that you may find useful.

Cognitive dome

2018-04-17T04:58:27Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

A '''cognitive dome''' is a figure used by [[Sydney M. Lamb|Sydney Lamb]] (2016). Imagine a sail dome, also known as a sail vault, which gives the impression of a square sail pinned down at each corner and billowing upward. The pinned-down corners or "legs" are (1) speech input, (2) speech output, (3) extra-linguistic perception, and (4) extra-linguistic motor activity. That is, the legs connect the cognitive system to the external world. The surface of the dome is the cognitive system itself. Semological structure is the large area at and near the top.

===Discussion===
The dome is only a rough aid to visualizing the actual situation, since what we really have is a separate leg for each perceptual modality, and several to many legs for motor structures, depending on how we choose to count.

As the figure suggests, the numerosity of distinguishable features is greater at higher
strata than at lower. For example, in spoken language we have only about a dozen
articulatory features, two to three dozen phonemes, a few thousand morphemes, tens of
thousands of lexemes, and hundreds of thousands of sememes. The same type of relationship
evidently exists for the other systems.

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that meaning structures are not simply above
lexicogrammatical structures, in the same way that lexicogrammatical structures are above
phonological structures. Rather, they are all over the cognitive system: Some, including
concepts, are above, while others, including percepts, are not.

At this point we encounter the question of how far linguistic structure extends. We could
take the position that these other systems are not part of linguistic structure and therefore
don’t have to be included in the investigation. That proposal would lead to an impoverished
understanding. Conceptual structure and perceptual structure and the rest are so intimately
tied up with the rest of linguistic structure that the latter cannot be understood without
including the former. There are two major reasons for this conclusion: (1) the semological
categories are highly relevant to syntax; (2) semological structure is largely organized as a
hierarchical system of categories, and this categorical structure, along with the thinking that
depends on it, varies from language to language and is largely learned through language.

Moreover, the boundaries between conceptual structure on the one hand and perceptual
and motor structures on the other are also at best very fuzzy, so there seems to be no clear boundary anywhere within the cognitive dome. And so the quest for boundaries for language
comes up empty: There is no discernable boundary anywhere within the cognitive system. We
conclude that the investigation of linguistic structure takes us to a way of understanding
cognition in general, including the structures that support perception and motor activity.

===Sources===
*Benzon, William. 2016. [http://www.ludjournal.org/index.php?journal=LUD&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=57 Some thoughts on lexemes, the dome, and inner speech]. Language Under Discussion 4(1). 73-77.
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 2016. [http://www.ludjournal.org/index.php?journal=LUD&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=30 Linguistic structure: A plausible theory]. Language Under Discussion 4(1). 1-37.

[[Category:DICT]] [[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Cognitive dome

2018-04-17T04:55:37Z

PaulSank: new page

A '''cognitive dome''' is a figure used by [[Sydney M. Lamb|Sydney Lamb]]. Imagine a sail dome, also known as a sail vault, which gives the impression of a square sail pinned down at each corner and billowing upward. The pinned-down corners or "legs" are (1) speech input, (2) speech output, (3) extra-linguistic perception, and (4) extra-linguistic motor activity. That is, the legs connect the cognitive system to the external world. The surface of the dome is the cognitive system itself. Semological structure is the large area at and near the top.

===Discussion===
The dome is only a rough aid to visualizing the actual situation, since what we really have is a separate leg for each perceptual modality, and several to many legs for motor structures, depending on how we choose to count.

As the figure suggests, the numerosity of distinguishable features is greater at higher
strata than at lower. For example, in spoken language we have only about a dozen
articulatory features, two to three dozen phonemes, a few thousand morphemes, tens of
thousands of lexemes, and hundreds of thousands of sememes. The same type of relationship
evidently exists for the other systems.

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that meaning structures are not simply above
lexicogrammatical structures, in the same way that lexicogrammatical structures are above
phonological structures. Rather, they are all over the cognitive system: Some, including
concepts, are above, while others, including percepts, are not.

At this point we encounter the question of how far linguistic structure extends. We could
take the position that these other systems are not part of linguistic structure and therefore
don’t have to be included in the investigation. That proposal would lead to an impoverished
understanding. Conceptual structure and perceptual structure and the rest are so intimately
tied up with the rest of linguistic structure that the latter cannot be understood without
including the former. There are two major reasons for this conclusion: (1) the semological
categories are highly relevant to syntax; (2) semological structure is largely organized as a
hierarchical system of categories, and this categorical structure, along with the thinking that
depends on it, varies from language to language and is largely learned through language.

Moreover, the boundaries between conceptual structure on the one hand and perceptual
and motor structures on the other are also at best very fuzzy, so there seems to be no clear boundary anywhere within the cognitive dome. And so the quest for boundaries for language
comes up empty: There is no discernable boundary anywhere within the cognitive system. We
conclude that the investigation of linguistic structure takes us to a way of understanding
cognition in general, including the structures that support perception and motor activity.

===Sources===
*Benzon, William. 2016. [http://www.ludjournal.org/index.php?journal=LUD&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=57 Some thoughts on lexemes, the dome, and inner speech]. Language Under Discussion 4(1). 73-77.
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 2016. [http://www.ludjournal.org/index.php?journal=LUD&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=30 Linguistic structure: A plausible theory]. Language Under Discussion 4(1). 1-37.

[[Category:DICT]] [[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Sydney M. Lamb

2018-03-08T05:32:42Z

PaulSank: category added

'''Sydney M. Lamb''' is the Arnold Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at Rice University.

===Links===
*Website: [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/ LangBrain: Language and Brain: Neurocognitive Linguistics]
*Homepage: [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Sydney M. Lamb]

===Works cited on Glottopedia===
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1971. The crooked path of progess in cognitive linguistics. (Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24.99-123.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2003. [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/glossary.doc "Glossary of Technical Terms"] at LangBrain.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2004. Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb. London: Continuum.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:LINGUIST|Lamb, Sydney M.]][[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Relational network notation

2018-03-08T05:31:43Z

PaulSank: category added

==See==
*[[Compact relational network notation]]
*[[Narrow relational network notation]]

==See also==

*[[Relational network]]
*[[Relational network theory]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Logonection

2018-03-08T05:29:49Z

PaulSank: category added

A '''logonection''' in [[neurocognitive linguistics]] is a lexical nection.

===See===
[[Nection]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Diamond node

2018-03-08T05:28:33Z

PaulSank: category added

==See==
*[[Tactic connector]]

==See also==
*[[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Conditioning line

2018-03-08T05:27:48Z

PaulSank: category added

A '''conditioning line''' in relational network theory.

=== See also ===
*[[Line (in relational network theory)]]
*[[Relational network theory]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

{{stub}}

Operational plausibility

2018-03-08T05:24:07Z

PaulSank: minor correction

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:

1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.

2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.

3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).

4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).

5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".

6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>

7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.

8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.

9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.

10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).

11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.

12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).

13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
 Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
*Dell, Gary S. & Peter A. Reich. 1980. Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. ''Papers in Cognitive-Stratificational Linguistics'', ed. by James Copeland and Philip Davis, 19-34. Rice University Studies, vol. 66, no. 2. Houston: Rice University.
*Eble, Connie. 2000. Slang and lexicography. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 4499-511.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. ''Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2001. Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2016. Linguistic structure: A plausible theory. ''Language Under Discussion''.
*Lederer, Richard. 1987. ''Anguished English''. New York: Dell Publishing.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1991. “What shall we talk about next?”: Cognitive topic in the production and interpretation of conversation. ''LACUS Forum XVII:85-98''.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1992. Twice-told tales: Aspects of the storage and expression of personal experience. ''LACUS Forum XVIII:63-74''.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 2000. Cognitive networks in conversation. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 253-266.
*Müller, Ernst-August. 2000. Valence and phraseology in stratificational linguistics. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 3-21.
*Reich, Peter A. 1985. Unintentional puns. LACUS Forum XI.314-322.

===See also===
*[[Developmental plausibility]]
*[[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-08T05:22:41Z

PaulSank: sources added

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:

1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.

2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.

3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).

4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).

5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".

6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>

7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.

8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.

9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.

10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).

11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.

12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).

13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
 Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
*Dell, Gary S. & Peter A. Reich. 1980. Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. ''Papers in Cognitive-Stratificational Linguistics'', ed. by James Copeland and Philip Davis, 19-34. Rice University Studies, vol. 66, no. 2. Houston: Rice University.
*Eble, Connie. 2000. Slang and lexicography. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 4499-
511.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 1999. ''Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2001. Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics.
*Lamb, Sydney M. 2016. Linguistic structure: A plausible theory. ''Language Under Discussion''.
*Lederer, Richard. 1987. ''Anguished English''. New York: Dell Publishing.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1991. “What shall we talk about next?”: Cognitive topic in the
production and interpretation of conversation. ''LACUS Forum XVII:85-98''.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 1992. Twice-told tales: Aspects of the storage and expression of personal
experience. ''LACUS Forum XVIII:63-74''.
*Meyer, Cynthia Ford. 2000. Cognitive networks in conversation. Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000:
253-266.
*Müller, Ernst-August. 2000. Valence and phraseology in stratificational linguistics.
Lockwood, Fries & Copeland 2000: 3-21.
*Reich, Peter A. 1985. Unintentional puns. LACUS Forum XI.314-322.

===See also===
*[[Developmental plausibility]]
*[[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T23:32:50Z

PaulSank: source added

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:

1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.

2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.

3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).

4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).

5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".

6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>

7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.

8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.

9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.

10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).

11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.

12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).

13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
 Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
*Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.
*Lamb, Sydney M. "Questions of Evidence in Neurocognitive Linguistics", 2001.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:58:19Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:

1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.

2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.

3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).

4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).

5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".

6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>

7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.

8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.

9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.

10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).

11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.

12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).

13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
 Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:56:59Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>
7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
 Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:55:20Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example: "Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'." (Eble 2000: 509)
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:54:22Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
# Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
# Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
# Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
# Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example: "Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'." (Eble 2000: 509)
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:52:27Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
# Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
# Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
# Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
# Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example: "Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'." (Eble 2000: 509)
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the
lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:51:28Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
# Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
# Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
# Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
# Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
     Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the
lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:50:09Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
# Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
# Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000, Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
# Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context. How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
# Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the
lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:47:10Z

PaulSank: continued shaping the Discussion section

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

===Discussion===
It is important to appreciate that the [[Relational network theory|relational network]] hypothesis, though it is supported also by neurological evidence, can be arrived at and justified purely on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into operation for speaking and understanding.

Lamb (2001) now enumerates some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items:
# Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. "hamburger" (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The
network allows ''ham - burger'', and ''hamburg - er'' to both be present and to operate in parallel.
# Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000,
Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound ''zhong'' 'central, middle' plus ''guo'' 'kingdom' is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in parallel, means 'middle kingdom'.
# Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context.
How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188).
# Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection of ''zoom'' (as opposed to the expected ''go'') in the spontaneously produced ''Are you ready to zoom to the camera store?'' (Reich 1985).
# The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of
double pathways; e.g. ''a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says "Put it on my bill".
# Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following
example:
<blockquote>Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-American comedians came the form ''ho'', a dialect pronunciation of ''whore'', for 'a promiscuous woman'. The same sequence of sounds, spelled ''hoe'', refers to 'an implement for tilling the earth', i.e. a garden tool. Thus ''ho'' and garden tool are current slang synonyms for 'a promiscuous woman'. (Eble 2000: 509)</blockquote>
# Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by
quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement ''Something is rotten in the state of Florida'' conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
# Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by
variability in the strengths of connections.
# Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning
process, connections get strengthened.
# Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
# Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes some members, like ROBIN, SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU, PENGUIN. The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is strongly connected to the category BIRD), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction. Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all
contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever been proposed.
# Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose origin in the early 1960s was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple and direct means of such accounting: by the 'travelling' of activation through the pathways provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
# On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
<blockquote>Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.</blockquote>
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we add another: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the
lexeme ''pursuant'' and the possibly unfamiliar expression ''pursuant to a deposition notice'', although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone's seeming to draw attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward attempting to understand the passage beginning with ''pursuant''. The factor of attention has a global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence, which in an attorney's cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme ''appearance'' (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the time the phrase beginning with ''pursuant was received''.

 There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000). In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person's linguistic system is a relational network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Sources===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-03-02T22:29:26Z

PaulSank: rough content added

The fact that people are able to speak and write, and to comprehend texts (if often imperfectly), assures us that [[Linguistic information system|linguistic systems]] are able to operate for producing and
comprehending texts. Therefore, a model of "linguistic structure" cannot be considered realistic if it cannot be put into operation in a realistic way. This principle, the requirement of '''operational plausibility''', has also been mentioned by Ray Jackendoff (2002).

==Discussion==
It is important to appreciate that the relational network hypothesis, though it is
supported also by neurological evidence (see below), can be arrived at and justified purely
on the basis of linguistic evidence, including the fact that people are able to talk and to
understand one another. Though obvious and abundant, this evidence tends to be neglected
by many linguists, who work with theories of language that have no way of being put into
operation for speaking and understanding.
I now enumerate some pieces of this linguistic evidence, a baker’s dozen of items. As
most of them have already been treated in the literature, they are just given brief mention
here.
1. Coexistent alternative analyses; e.g. hamburger (Lamb 1999: 233-236). The
network allows ham - burger, and hamburg - er to both be present and to operate in
parallel (Figure 3).
2. Multiple parallel interpretation of (many) complex lexemes (cf. Müller 2000,
Lamb 1999: 184-197). For example, the Chinese compound zhong ‘central, middle’ plus
guo ‘kingdom’ is the name for China; but in its interpretation it also, simultaneously and in
parallel, means ‘middle kingdom’ (Figure 4).
3. Disambiguation of ambiguous words using linguistic and extralinguistic context.
How connotations operate (Lamb 1999: 187-188) (Figure 5).
4. Context-driven lexeme selection (Lamb 1999: 190-194). For example, the selection
of zoom (as opposed to the expected go) in the spontaneously produced Are you ready to
zoom to the camera store? (Reich 1985).
5. The interpretation of puns and other cases requiring simultaneous activation of
double pathways; e.g. a talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, as says “Put it on my
bill” (Figure 6).
6. Complex associations in slang lexeme formation. Eble (2000) gives the following
example (Figure 7):
Sometimes sound provides the link in a set. With the popularity of African-
American comedians came the form ho, a dialect pronunciation of whore, for
‘a promiscuous woman’. The same sequence of sounds, spelled hoe, refers to
‘an implement for tilling the earth’, i.e. a garden tool. Thus ho and garden tool
are current slang synonyms for ‘a promiscuous woman’ (Eble 2000: 509).
7. Phenomena involving association, such as literary allusions (e.g. to Hamlet by
quoting) and Freudian slips. For example, the statement Something is rotten in the state of
Florida conjures up Hamlet to people acquainted with this play.
8. Degrees of entrenchment of idioms and other complex lexemes — accounted for by
variability in the strengths of connections.
9. Gradualness of learning — related to degrees of entrenchment. In the learning
process, connections get strengthened.
10. Slips of the tongue (cf. Dell and Reich 1980).
11. Prototypicality phenomena. The conceptual category BIRD , for example, includes
some members, like ROBIN , SPARROW that are more prototypical than others, like EMU ,
PENGUIN . The effects have shown up in numerous psychological experiments using such
evidence as reaction time for deciding whether an item is or is not a member of the
category. The relational network model provides a simple and direct means of accounting
for the phenomena, by means of two devices that are needed anyway to account for other
phenomena: variation in the strength of connections (thus the property of FLYING is
strongly connected to the category BIRD ), and variation in degrees of threshold satisfaction.
Strength of activation, strength of connections, and number of activated connections all
contribute to the speed and degree to which the threshold of a node is satisfied. It is
important to notice that although these phenomena have been discussed in the literature for
years, no means of accounting for them other than by means of a network model has ever
been proposed.
12. Realistic means of accounting for speaking and understanding. This one, of basic
importance, covers a wide range of phenomena. The fact that people are able to speak and
to comprehend one another cries out for explanation. The relational network model, whose
origin over thirty-five years ago was motivated partly by this evidence, provides a simple
and direct means of such accounting: by the ‘travelling’ of activation through the pathways
provided by the network (Lamb 1999).
13. On-line cognitive processing in conversation. This rich but neglected opportunity
for study, again blessed by abundant but neglected evidence, has been explored by Cynthia
Ford Meyer in three papers (1991, 1992, 2000), and in her dissertation. Strangely and
sadly, her work has not yet encouraged others to undertake similar explorations. Here I
will give one example, not from her work but from my own analysis (Lamb 1999: 202) of
an actual courtroom exchange reported by Lederer (1987).
Attorney: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a
deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
Witness: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.
We can observe a number of phenomena that are readily accounted for by the relational
network approach. The witness is evidently concerned about her appearance and believes that
a woman's clothing contributes to her appearance. Beliefs are registered as conceptual
subnetworks, and matters of present or ongoing concern register as weak activation in these
networks. Such activation is increased by emotional stimulation. To this factor we addanother: Unfamiliar lexemes or locutions are likely not to provide much conceptual activation
if any, because the connections that would provide activation are weak or lacking. So the
lexeme pursuant and the possibly unfamiliar expression pursuant to a deposition notice,
although they were surely received by her phonological recognition system, probably didn't
generate much activity in her lexico-grammatical system, therefore little or none in her
conceptual system. In addition, any emotional affect aroused by someone’s seeming to draw
attention to her appearance would deflect attention that might otherwise be directed toward
5
attempting to understand the passage beginning with pursuant. The factor of attention has a
global effect on degrees of threshold satisfaction. As a result, that latter part of the sentence,
which in an attorney’s cognitive system provides strong contextual activation to one interpretation of the lexeme appearance (the intended one), fails to have such an effect in the
woman's system, and the other interpretation has in any case already been activated by the
time the phrase beginning with pursuant was received (Figure 8).
There is an opportunity for many more fruitful studies along these lines and those
opened up by Meyer (1991, 1992, 2000).
In any case, this brief survey suggests that considerable linguistic evidence exists for
the hypothesis that the neurocognitive basis of a person’s linguistic system is a relational
network. These phenomena all support the network model, and no one has ever proposed
an alternative means of accounting for them.

===Source===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Neurological plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-12T17:37:28Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line (in relational network theory)|line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

==Example==
[[File:zero-element.jpg|300px|thumb|left|A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] based on Lamb 1966.]]
In the diagram, four examples of the zero element occur.
*The leftmost zero element, below a downward [[OR node]], indicates that instead of "always" or "often", there may be a null output, i.e., nothing.
*The next zero element shows that there could be "have-en" or nothing. In other words, the 'have-en' is optional.
*The next zero element, above the downward [[AND node]], shows the (optional) third of three possible outputs: (1) be-ing-go-to followed by have-en; (2) be-ing-go-to followed by nothing; (3) nothing at all.
*The rightmost zero element shows three possibilities: be-ing, be-able-to, or nothing.

==Sources==
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:56:51Z

PaulSank: minor correction

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line (in relational network theory)|line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

==Example==
[[File:zero-element.jpg|300px|thumb|left|A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] based on Lamb 1966.]]
In the diagram, four examples of the zero element occur.
*The leftmost zero element, below a downward [[OR node]], indicates that instead of "always" or "often", there may be a null output, i.e., nothing.
*The next element shows that there could be "have-en" or nothing.
*The next element, above the downward [[AND node]], shows the third of three possible outputs: (1) be-ing-go-to followed by have-en; (2) be-ing-go-to followed by nothing; (3) nothing at all.
*The rightmost zero element shows three possibilities: be-ing, be-able-to, or nothing.

==Sources==
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

File:Zero-element.jpg

2018-02-11T02:56:15Z

PaulSank: minor correction

A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] based on Lamb 1966.

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:55:47Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line (in relational network theory)|line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

==Example==
[[File:zero-element.jpg|300px|thumb|left|A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] from Lamb 1966.]]
In the diagram, four examples of the zero element occur.
*The leftmost zero element, below a downward [[OR node]], indicates that instead of "always" or "often", there may be a null output, i.e., nothing.
*The next element shows that there could be "have-en" or nothing.
*The next element, above the downward [[AND node]], shows the third of three possible outputs: (1) be-ing-go-to followed by have-en; (2) be-ing-go-to followed by nothing; (3) nothing at all.
*The rightmost zero element shows three possibilities: be-ing, be-able-to, or nothing.

==Sources==
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:54:30Z

PaulSank: minor improvement

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line (in relational network theory)|line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

==Example==
[[File:zero-element.jpg|300px|thumb|left|A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] from Lamb 1966.]]
In the diagram, four examples of the zero element occur.
*The leftmost zero element, below a downward [[OR node]], indicates that instead of "always" or "often", there may be a null output, i.e., nothing.
*The next element shows that there could be "have-en" or nothing.
*The next element, above the downward [[AND node]], shows the third of three possible outputs:
**be-ing-go-to followed by have-en.
**be-ing-go-to followed by nothing.
**Nothing at all.
*The rightmost zero element shows three possibilities: be-ing, be-able-to, or nothing.

==Sources==
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:53:32Z

PaulSank: Example section finished

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line (in relational network theory)|line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

==Example==
[[File:zero-element.jpg|300px|thumb|left|A fragment of English lexotactics, showing four examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] from Lamb 1966.]]
In the diagram, four examples of the zero element occur.
*The leftmost zero element, below a downward [[OR node]], indicates that instead of "always" or "often", there may be a null output.
*The next element shows that there could be "have-en" or nothing.
*The next element, above the downward [[AND node]], shows the third of three possible outputs:
**be-ing-go-to followed by have-en.
**be-ing-go-to followed by nothing.
**Nothing at all.
*The rightmost zero element shows three possibilities: be-ing, be-able-to, or nothing.

==Sources==
*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]] 1966. ''Outline of Stratificational Grammar''. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:46:22Z

PaulSank: minor correction

File:Zero-element.jpg

2018-02-11T02:45:50Z

PaulSank: A fragment of English lexotactics, showing three examples of the zero element. Diagram by JPS based on Lamb 1966.

A fragment of English lexotactics, showing three examples of the zero element. Diagram by [[User:PaulSank|JPS]] based on Lamb 1966.

Zero element

2018-02-11T02:43:18Z

PaulSank: picture added

Zero element

2018-02-11T01:21:36Z

PaulSank: Sources section added

Zero element

2018-02-11T01:19:48Z

PaulSank: minor correction

Zero element

2018-02-11T01:18:55Z

PaulSank: content added

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]] is represented by a small circle at the end of a [[line]]. Impulses moving to a zero element disappear; and an impulse may move from a zero element to the connecting line at any time.

[[Category:EN]] [[Category:Dict]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Zero element

2018-02-11T01:10:44Z

PaulSank: new page

The '''zero element''' in [[relational network notation]].

[[Category:EN]] [[Category:Dict]] [[Category:Stratificational_Grammar]]

Language (in neurocognitive linguistics)

2018-01-28T19:14:53Z

PaulSank: added a category

In [[neurocognitive linguistics]], '''language''' is the system used by people for their [[linguistic activity]], ''i.e.,'' the [[linguistic information system]] of the brain.

The concept ''language'' is at best a remotely abstract one. Language is several steps removed from reality. You cannot touch, see, or feel a language. Yes, you can hear speech, but that is something different. Should we assume that because we have the word "language", there must be such things as languages?

"Language" is just a term of English. It may be interesting to take note of the fact that many of what English calls languages do not have terms equivalent to "language".

Such a commonly occurring word as "language" naturally encourages people to form a conceptual object within their belief systems to go with it, and to imagine that this concept must have an existence as a definite object of some kind beyond what is tangibly and observably real. What is commonly called a language is not only unobservable, it is not a physical object of any kind. It can be regarded as a very abstract object or as a logical construct, or as an illusion. Furthermore, belief in its existence as a real object tends to deny the fact that every person's linguistic system -- a network existing in that person's brain -- differs to varying degrees from that of every other person.

Nevertheless, for the sake of linguistics and in recognition that this field is certainly concerned with languages in some sense of that longtime ill-defined term, neurocognitive linguistics tries to look behind the term and find the tangible and observable reality.

===Sources===

* [http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain LangBrain]
* Lamb, Sydney M., [http://www.continuumbooks.com/Books/detail.aspx?ReturnURL=/subjects/default.aspx&CountryID=1&ImprintID=2&BookID=117093 Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Blocking element

2018-01-28T19:10:42Z

PaulSank: added a category

The '''blocking element''' in [[narrow relational network notation]] is a special type of [[junction node]] that connects directly to another [[Line (in relational network theory)|line]] and inhibits the passage of [[activation]] on that line.

===Sources===

*[[Sydney M. Lamb|Lamb, Sydney M.]]. 1999. ''[http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=CILT%20170 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language].'' Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

{{dc}}{{stub}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Mutable lexeme

2018-01-28T19:07:43Z

PaulSank: added a category

A '''mutable lexeme''' is a complex [[lexeme (in neurocognitive linguistics)|lexeme]] with one or more [[variable constituent|variable constituents]].

=== Example ===

"The mother of all battles", Saddam Hussein's variant of a common Arabic expression, entered English and immediately became mutable, as exemplified by the expression "the mother of all meteors", which was used by the ''New York Times'' when reporting a spectacular meteor seen over the Eastern United States.

=== Comments ===

Some mutable lexemes have more than one variable, for example, "you don't have to be a X to Y that Z", where X = "brain surgeon" or "rocket scientist", Y = "understand" or "appreciate" or "see". Z varies over an infinite range of possible clauses, exemplifying a broad sort of variable that is not at all uncommon.

What linguists have customarily called [[construction|constructions]] can all be viewed as mutable lexemes. Many of them have one or more fixed constituents. For example, the "way" construction has the one fixed constituent "way", plus several variable constituents. From a TV news broadcast during the energy crisis a few years ago, we have, "...whether Californians can conserve their way out of this crisis...". Note that "conserve" is in no way a verb of motion. The (metaphorical) motion element of the meaning is imparted by the construction (i.e., mutable lexeme) itself.

From the fact that all constructions are mutable lexemes, it follows that the whole of a lexicogrammatical system is a collection of lexemes, some fixed, some mutable.

=== Sources ===

* [http://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Reality.html?id=vrlPUxB2_JwC Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb], Continuum, 2004.

{{dc}}
[[Category:DICT]]
[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Grammar]]
[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Logonection

2018-01-28T19:05:47Z

PaulSank: added a category

A '''logonection''' in [[neurocognitive linguistics]] is a lexical nection.

===See===
[[Nection]]

[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Neurological plausibility

2018-01-28T19:04:31Z

PaulSank: added a category

Since we linguists are attempting to be realistic, we cannot treat a linguistic structure as just some kind of abstract mathematical object. In keeping with the requirements of operational plausibility and developmental plausibility, we have to recognize that linguistic structures exist in the real world and that their loci are the brains of people. And so a theory of linguistic structure needs to be consistent with what is known about the structure and operation of the brain. This is the requirement of '''neurological plausibility'''.

===Source===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Developmental plausibility]]
 [[Operational plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Developmental plausibility

2018-01-28T19:03:50Z

PaulSank: added a category

Real-life linguistic systems undergo changes, often on a day-to-day basis. Such changes are most obvious in children, whose linguistic systems undergo rapid development during the first few years, from essentially
nothing at all at birth to huge capacity and fluent operation by age five. But adults also acquire new lexical items from time to time, in some cases quite often, as when they undertake learning some new body of knowledge. They also sometimes acquire new syntactic constructions. And so a model of linguistic structure, to be considered realistic, must incorporate the ability to develop and to acquire new capabilities of production and
comprehension. This criterion may be called the requirement of '''developmental plausibility'''. It provides another easy way to distinguish a theory of linguistic structure from a theory of
the outputs of linguistic structure. Valuable as they are for their own purposes, theories of the outputs, are in such a form that there is no plausible avenue that could lead to their development. This statement applies also to some network theories, such as the well-known
connectionist theory of Rummelhart and McClellan (1986).

===Source===
Lamb, Sydney M. "Linguistic structure: A plausible theory" in [http://www.ludjournal.org Language Under Discussion], published online June 2, 2016.

===See also===
[[Neurological plausibility]]
 [[Operational plausibility]]

[[Category:En]] [[Category:DICT]] [[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

Operational plausibility

2018-01-28T19:02:57Z

PaulSank: added a category

Diamond node

2018-01-28T19:00:38Z

PaulSank: added a category

==See==
*[[Tactic connector]]

==See also==
*[[Node (in neurocognitive linguistics)]]

[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

David G. Lockwood

2018-01-28T18:56:55Z

PaulSank: added a category

'''David G. Lockwood''' (d. 2007-09-26) was an American linguist who worked at [[Michigan State University]].

===Link===
[http://linguistlist.org/issues/18/18-3037.html LINGUIST List obituary] by Grover Hudson

[[Category:En]]
[[Category:BIOG|Lockwood, David G.]]
[[Category:Stratificational Grammar]]

User:PaulSank

2018-01-28T18:44:49Z

PaulSank: brought this entry up to data

J Paul Sank is an amateur. Majored in linguistics (an interdisciplinary major) at Ohio Wesleyan University, 1976-78. Audited linguistics courses at Rutgers University Camden, 2004-2008. Maintains a daily Twitter feed about linguistics [http://www.twitter.com/LingFan1 @LingFan1]. Also keeps adding terms to [http://studylove.org/ling/jpsgloss.html Sank's Glossary of Linguistics], which is just an informal personal glossary posted online in hope that others will find it informally useful.