Philip W . Davis | Rice University (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Philip W . Davis
Just Because, 2022
English just attracts attention for various reasons, the first being, I think, its apparent varie... more English just attracts attention for various reasons, the first being, I think, its apparent variety of meanings, which, when they first enter the consiousness of a native speaker, are so disparate that they are as curious and interesting as they are confounding. 1 That same variety is an imposing challenge to the linguist who is trying to understand just and to give its usage an explicit, coherent description. Just must pose a challenge of a third kind to an infant working to gain command of English. Just [!] how does a child, beginning from innocence with just, go about acquiring facility with it. 2 And finally, just poses a challenge of a fourth kind for the conception of language. What must language be like so that all this happens? 3 There is lack of homogeneity (if not disagreement) in how just has been treated in the literature. 4 It appears common to make a distinction in principle in the grammars of language between "pragmatic markers" 5 and some remainder, and then to assign just to the group of pragmatic markers (Molina & Romano 2012.18).
There is no logical reason that human languages should exhibit syntactic complexity. Any content ... more There is no logical reason that human languages should exhibit syntactic complexity. Any content expressed by a complex syntactic construction can be accomplished equally well by a combination of simple ones. Yet, all languages will exhibit syntactic complexity in some fashion. They may differ in where that complexity is invoked. What some may do with simple expressions, another will do in a complex way. These claims (and they are empirical hypotheses that may be contradicted by some language) imply a number of questions. (My answers to the 'yes'-'no' ones are in parentheses.) How and where will a language use syntactic complexity? Where will it not? Is there any relation among the manifestations of grammatical complexity within a language (yes)? Across languages, is it possible to compare grammatical complexity (yes)? Are there any patterns across languages (yes)? Are there any universals to complexity (yes)? Is there a typology of complexity (yes)? Is it possible to make a reason guess about why syntactic complexity would exist in language (yes)? The following chapters attempt to answer these questions. One of the underlying assumptions of the inquiry is that the answers will not be found in the form of complexity, but in the meaning(s) which the form expresses. The strategy is to examine a range of languages searching for what may seem to be 'complex', to discover the meanings of the complexity, to search for patterns in the meanings, and finally to let the understanding of 'complexity' emerge from those patterns. The conclusions are to be constantly challenged (and refined) by data from languages not yet examined.
Rice Institute Pamphlet - Rice University Studies, 1980
Our purpose in this paper is the explication of the way we have come to view the accomplishment o... more Our purpose in this paper is the explication of the way we have come to view the accomplishment of spoken discourse. More immediately, we describe the discourse sources of certain distinctions that we have found necessary in the description of lexological order in the German Satzfeld (Copeland and Davis Ms.). The theoretical model that serves as orienting framework for that work and also for this paper is that of Lamb's stratificational grammar, now known as cognitive linguistics. The initial appeal of the model is that it permits one to consider the language phenomena of content, i.e., semantics in its many interpretations, without immediately embroiling oneself in expression, i.e., syntax, morphology, and phonology; and it is that independence that is the base of our comments here. It is, of course, impossible to prove any view of discourse to be correct, and we will be satisfied here if ours provides an intuitively reasonable characterization of that process. What we mean by ...
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 1996
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 1991
Journal of Anthropological Research, 1974
The toponymy of head bones in Bella Coola is described and compared with the corresponding Englis... more The toponymy of head bones in Bella Coola is described and compared with the corresponding English scientific system. The differences between the two systems reflect the different evolutionary stages to which each system belongs. The Bella Coola system remains in a topographical stage, while the English scientific system has passed through this stage to a morphological one. In addition, the following points are made: (1) Bella Coola has a system of head bone names, not merely a random array of head bone names; (2) that a system exists is shown by evidence of a nonlinguistic or linguistically neutral nature, namely the results of the part-whole test; (3) that a system exists is also manifest in the linguistic data that constitute the nomenclature; (4) that the systems of (2) and (3) are, with one exception, identical.
Language Sciences, 1993
The papers in this collection attempt to identify alternative modes in thinking about language an... more The papers in this collection attempt to identify alternative modes in thinking about language and to develop selected aspects of the proposed alternatives. The suggestions contained in these contributions are 'alternatives' to those conceptions of language which take it to be a discrete object and one that can be isolated from other aspects of humanity. Although the contributors are expressing a shared concern, this does not imply agreement among them as to appearance of the alternatives. The introduction considers tome problems in Ilokano and Taiwanese in order to illustrate more concretely the nature of the issues which are addressed by the remainder of the papers. 'strange, but not a stranger'
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 2000
Linguistics, 1978
0.1 Particles in Bella Coola divide as in Figure 1 into Modal and Non-modal particles. This divis... more 0.1 Particles in Bella Coola divide as in Figure 1 into Modal and Non-modal particles. This division is based on whether the particle signals a dyadic relationship between the speaker and the Narrated Event (E) or a triadic one involving the speaker, his audience and the narrated event. For example, if a speaker is observing the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) a declarative sentence lacking a modal particle signals that the speaker knows that his assertion is true. If, for whatever reason, the speaker wishes to signal that his knowledge of the narrated event is such that he cannot guarantee its truth, he must employ one of the set of modal particles. From this set he may choose, according to the specific circumstances, the Dubitative ma, the Inferential Dubitative ck, the Quotative k, etc. Non-modal particles divide into Conjunctive Particles (c.p.'s) and the Particles of Expectation. Both of these may involve a triadic relationship among speaker, audience and narrated event. Their difference is in syntactic function; the conjunctive particles conjoin sentences, the particles of expectation do not. For a detailed treatment of one of the particles of expectation, see Saunders and Davis 'Bella Coola su\
Language, 1975
The principal nominal deictic affixes of Bella Coola, a Salishan language of British Columbia, ar... more The principal nominal deictic affixes of Bella Coola, a Salishan language of British Columbia, are examined. Semantically, a three-way distinction is found: Proximal, Middle, and Distal for deictic space; Present, Near Past, and Distant Past for deictic time. The notion of neighborhood and a definition of natural and unnatural circumstance are introduced to explain the usage of the affixes and the observed neutralization of the semantic components of space and time.*
Just Because, 2022
English just attracts attention for various reasons, the first being, I think, its apparent varie... more English just attracts attention for various reasons, the first being, I think, its apparent variety of meanings, which, when they first enter the consiousness of a native speaker, are so disparate that they are as curious and interesting as they are confounding. 1 That same variety is an imposing challenge to the linguist who is trying to understand just and to give its usage an explicit, coherent description. Just must pose a challenge of a third kind to an infant working to gain command of English. Just [!] how does a child, beginning from innocence with just, go about acquiring facility with it. 2 And finally, just poses a challenge of a fourth kind for the conception of language. What must language be like so that all this happens? 3 There is lack of homogeneity (if not disagreement) in how just has been treated in the literature. 4 It appears common to make a distinction in principle in the grammars of language between "pragmatic markers" 5 and some remainder, and then to assign just to the group of pragmatic markers (Molina & Romano 2012.18).
There is no logical reason that human languages should exhibit syntactic complexity. Any content ... more There is no logical reason that human languages should exhibit syntactic complexity. Any content expressed by a complex syntactic construction can be accomplished equally well by a combination of simple ones. Yet, all languages will exhibit syntactic complexity in some fashion. They may differ in where that complexity is invoked. What some may do with simple expressions, another will do in a complex way. These claims (and they are empirical hypotheses that may be contradicted by some language) imply a number of questions. (My answers to the 'yes'-'no' ones are in parentheses.) How and where will a language use syntactic complexity? Where will it not? Is there any relation among the manifestations of grammatical complexity within a language (yes)? Across languages, is it possible to compare grammatical complexity (yes)? Are there any patterns across languages (yes)? Are there any universals to complexity (yes)? Is there a typology of complexity (yes)? Is it possible to make a reason guess about why syntactic complexity would exist in language (yes)? The following chapters attempt to answer these questions. One of the underlying assumptions of the inquiry is that the answers will not be found in the form of complexity, but in the meaning(s) which the form expresses. The strategy is to examine a range of languages searching for what may seem to be 'complex', to discover the meanings of the complexity, to search for patterns in the meanings, and finally to let the understanding of 'complexity' emerge from those patterns. The conclusions are to be constantly challenged (and refined) by data from languages not yet examined.
Rice Institute Pamphlet - Rice University Studies, 1980
Our purpose in this paper is the explication of the way we have come to view the accomplishment o... more Our purpose in this paper is the explication of the way we have come to view the accomplishment of spoken discourse. More immediately, we describe the discourse sources of certain distinctions that we have found necessary in the description of lexological order in the German Satzfeld (Copeland and Davis Ms.). The theoretical model that serves as orienting framework for that work and also for this paper is that of Lamb's stratificational grammar, now known as cognitive linguistics. The initial appeal of the model is that it permits one to consider the language phenomena of content, i.e., semantics in its many interpretations, without immediately embroiling oneself in expression, i.e., syntax, morphology, and phonology; and it is that independence that is the base of our comments here. It is, of course, impossible to prove any view of discourse to be correct, and we will be satisfied here if ours provides an intuitively reasonable characterization of that process. What we mean by ...
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 1996
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 1991
Journal of Anthropological Research, 1974
The toponymy of head bones in Bella Coola is described and compared with the corresponding Englis... more The toponymy of head bones in Bella Coola is described and compared with the corresponding English scientific system. The differences between the two systems reflect the different evolutionary stages to which each system belongs. The Bella Coola system remains in a topographical stage, while the English scientific system has passed through this stage to a morphological one. In addition, the following points are made: (1) Bella Coola has a system of head bone names, not merely a random array of head bone names; (2) that a system exists is shown by evidence of a nonlinguistic or linguistically neutral nature, namely the results of the part-whole test; (3) that a system exists is also manifest in the linguistic data that constitute the nomenclature; (4) that the systems of (2) and (3) are, with one exception, identical.
Language Sciences, 1993
The papers in this collection attempt to identify alternative modes in thinking about language an... more The papers in this collection attempt to identify alternative modes in thinking about language and to develop selected aspects of the proposed alternatives. The suggestions contained in these contributions are 'alternatives' to those conceptions of language which take it to be a discrete object and one that can be isolated from other aspects of humanity. Although the contributors are expressing a shared concern, this does not imply agreement among them as to appearance of the alternatives. The introduction considers tome problems in Ilokano and Taiwanese in order to illustrate more concretely the nature of the issues which are addressed by the remainder of the papers. 'strange, but not a stranger'
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 2000
Linguistics, 1978
0.1 Particles in Bella Coola divide as in Figure 1 into Modal and Non-modal particles. This divis... more 0.1 Particles in Bella Coola divide as in Figure 1 into Modal and Non-modal particles. This division is based on whether the particle signals a dyadic relationship between the speaker and the Narrated Event (E) or a triadic one involving the speaker, his audience and the narrated event. For example, if a speaker is observing the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) a declarative sentence lacking a modal particle signals that the speaker knows that his assertion is true. If, for whatever reason, the speaker wishes to signal that his knowledge of the narrated event is such that he cannot guarantee its truth, he must employ one of the set of modal particles. From this set he may choose, according to the specific circumstances, the Dubitative ma, the Inferential Dubitative ck, the Quotative k, etc. Non-modal particles divide into Conjunctive Particles (c.p.'s) and the Particles of Expectation. Both of these may involve a triadic relationship among speaker, audience and narrated event. Their difference is in syntactic function; the conjunctive particles conjoin sentences, the particles of expectation do not. For a detailed treatment of one of the particles of expectation, see Saunders and Davis 'Bella Coola su\
Language, 1975
The principal nominal deictic affixes of Bella Coola, a Salishan language of British Columbia, ar... more The principal nominal deictic affixes of Bella Coola, a Salishan language of British Columbia, are examined. Semantically, a three-way distinction is found: Proximal, Middle, and Distal for deictic space; Present, Near Past, and Distant Past for deictic time. The notion of neighborhood and a definition of natural and unnatural circumstance are introduced to explain the usage of the affixes and the observed neutralization of the semantic components of space and time.*