Furthermore, the systematic use of complex symbols suffices to account for an abstract underlying order. With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not readily tolerate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: relational information is not subject to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Thus the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the traditional practice of grammarians. For one thing, the natural general principle that will subsume this case delimits nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.

If you've ever had to wade through pseudo-scientific babble in any field, you know how accurate that is.

Let us continue to suppose that any associated supporting element raises serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is not to be considered in determining the traditional practice of grammarians. However, this assumption is not correct, since the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction suffices to account for an important distinction in language use. It appears that a descriptively adequate grammar can be defined in such a way as to impose nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that this selectionally introduced contextual feature may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

(Thanks to lucklucky in the comments at Roger L Simon's blog.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.