BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:On the nature of syntactic variation - Lu Gram (Computer Laborator
 y)
DTSTART:20090126T123000Z
DTEND:20090126T133000Z
UID:TALK16615@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha
DESCRIPTION:At this session of the NLIP Reading Group we'll be discussing 
 the following paper:\n\nWilliam Snyder. 2001. "On the Nature of Syntactic 
 Variation: Evidence from Complex Predicates and Complex Word-Formation":ht
 tp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/language/v077/77.2snyder.pdf. Language 77(2):32
 4-342.\n\nAs this paper is slightly atypical for the reading group in both
  topic and length\, Lu has provided some pointers:\n\nFocus on the section
  called "Children's acquisition of English". The section called Cross-ling
 uistic Survey and the Discussion section can be omitted. Specifically\, I'
 m thinking about these three questions: Are the statistical methods used i
 n the "Children's acquisition of English" section valid? Is there a way\, 
 we can automate the search for structures such as verb-particle constructi
 ons and\nendocentric root compounds using the RASP-parses of corpus data? 
 And finally\, is there an alternative explanation for how children learn v
 erb-particle constructions and endocentric root compounds other than param
 eter setting?\n\nFurther\, note that in the linguistics literature\, the w
 ord 'parameter' is much more specific than in mathematics. In mathematics 
 it is just an index of a function. However\, in linguistics it is almost a
 lways\nused in the Chomskyan sense of an innate\, mostly binary switch tha
 t determines linguistic structure - in generative linguistics\, the infant
  brain is supposed to be a switch-box and language acquisition\nconsists o
 f setting these switches. So people are supposed to be innately born with 
 a set of linguistic PRINCIPLES\, i.e. constraints\, and a set of linguisti
 c PARAMETERS\, i.e. points of variation. For example\, in English\, senten
 ces require a subject so we say "it rains" whereas in Chinese\, they do no
 t\, so one can say "xia yu"\, which means approximately\, "rains". One pro
 posed explanation is the fact that people are innately born with a "null-s
 ubject"-parameter\, which is set to "true" in the brains of Chinese childr
 en and "false" in the brains of English children. This framework is THE FO
 UNDATION of all work in contemporary generative linguistics\, so it's very
  important to understand this in order to understand the paper. What Snyde
 r is proposing here is that children are BORN with the knowledge of verb-p
 article constructions and endocentric root compounds and the\nONLY thing t
 hey have to learn as they grow up is whether or not these constructions ex
 ist in the language they are exposed to. 
LOCATION:GS15\, Computer Laboratory
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR