Linguistic Structure and Linguistic Change: Explanation from Language ProcessingLanguage, 2000
NOTICES fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is...
John W Oller
