Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding Lectures from the 1985 LSA/TESOL and NEH Institutes edited by Deborah Tannen Georgetown University Volume XXIX in the Series ‘ADVANCES IN DISCOURSE PROCESSES Roy 0. Freedle, EditorCong © 1986 by Aber Pasig Copnuion ‘A hs ev. No part of hi ube ey be potas sored in & teva rem, er sant in ay frm ob yews, ‘ae, photecopyng, eotining Tago secre wos pe. ‘Prise inte Unie Sues of Asc ary € Congress Catogn-ubletn Date “ngs in come: coteting tention a undertening/ eid ty ‘Bebonb Tange B_, cam(hévans is nue prone. 28) Sele ltrs and en intoductoe Som te 1985 LSA/TESOL ad NEH Insite, tld Geoows Univ, Te Aue 2 3 ‘igh ISBN Og838-4344, Isa 09591-455X pbk) 1 Cami mas aon Cnpee Lng dg ‘sy abd ching Communes}. PoetySiaty ad ethng- Congo 1 Tansen, itr 1. TS8/TESOL Inte (1962 Geopinen Uso) iu er Phage 197 siocaers srgm ‘Able Pubing Copecton 555 Caen See ‘Noreod, New ey O76 ‘heen etna tneye ene To MichaelCHAPTER FIVE Emergent Grammar and the A Priori Grammar Postulate* Paul Hopper SUNY Center at Binghamton Bat all the phenomena that led 19 these copcusons can be handled rather sriphtforvardy i theory that opplement sc erammatial fompetence with non-tivialpaneipes for puting tat competence t se in actual speech Newmeyer 1984972, 4 Platonis, fing in concepts things which change and flow and ‘ing to these concepts a further Seed soncept of flowing Dilhey 1988, vol. $112, ‘THE “APGP" AND THE EMERGENCE OF GRAMMAR Linguistics today seems to be leaning toward two basic approaches to fgammar, whose polar extremes are dominated by radcaly diffrent Understandings of the nature of human language shall efor to these {vo attitudes of thought as (a the "A Prion Grammar atutude,” and (© the “Emergence of Grammar attitude" In suggesting these desg- rations, I will ot presume to identify particular linguists with one or The Hal Ga of tis cue wa om dig a year ave as « Geoin ow in 985-86 am gl tte Jae Son Gua Found ppt {nt Wate Cat, Dior and Anite Drs of the Leis es fr vig Javed ret sare the eas ih the param Taans ate sho eto Sandy ‘Thompson, Lary Rober and Stove Sei rte beth vases pe fe ioe hou sone of thom at tobe Bld sananaeopany es of etot ‘Btn fo tT mapecty Sede hw Pete Bee oo he season of io Stencil mio bethe other, since what is being described here are extreme positions; ‘many linguists in practice occupy a place somewhere betwecn these {vo poles, and either explicitly or tei draw fom a middle ground, ‘The first ofthese postions makes the inital assumption that a grammar is a discrete set of rules which are logically and mentally presupposed by discourse; that is, that grammars logically detachable from discourse tnd precedes discourse. This isthe postulate which I shell refer to 88 {he A Priori Grammar Postlate (APGP), The APGP underlies vac fof current approaches 10 grammar, The second, the Emergence of Grammar (EOG) attude, has come to view grammer asthe name for 8 vaguely defined set of sedimented (ie, grammatiized) “tecurrent Paris whose status is constantly being renegotiated in speech and ‘which cannot be distinguished in principle from strategies for building iscourses. Viewed from the perspective of the APGP attitude, grammar is complete and predetermined and is a prerequisite for generating dis courses, From the perspective of the EOG attitude grammar is pro- visional and incomplete and emerges in discourse. ‘The term “A Priori Grammar” as I ue it here derives from Huse and the clasial tradition of phenomenology, but conceptually it has ‘a much longer history. Edie (1977) notes, for example, tat Husse's quest fora “pure” grammar resumes 2 philosophical theme going back to the Middle Ages and even before; he also observes tat “fie word ‘pur’ in Husser's terminology seems to be a synonym for “formal” (sie 1977:138n). Edie cites from Husterl's Lopische Untersuchungen: ‘Language bat not only physiological, psychological and caltura-hisoricl, ‘ut aio = prior foundations. These lst concer te esatal meaing of forms and the a pric! laws of ther comtiations and modiestons, nd language i thinkable which would not be esentally determin by this a pion. (userid in Ede 1971 139-180), 4s clear in Husser’s own writings of this period, and in Edie’ Paper, that it isthe grammatical priori which is the “Art level of logical reflection” (Edie 1977140). This most abstract level of grammar, logically preceding experience of the world and “empirical” grammar, thats, the specie grammar ofa particular language, therefore structures ‘and encompasses both individual grammar and perception ofthe worl, In the terminology of clasical phenomenology, it constitutes one of the fundamental “a prion structures of consciousness” Edie sec the {ask of modem linguistics to be that of taking up Huss’ early project of an a priori grammar, Thus, writing in 1972 (reprinted in 1977), Edie (1977:137) observes that although the idea ofa universal a prion [EMERGENT GRAMMAR 119 {gammar has its origins in medieval thought, Husser's project of a “pure lsical grammar”—"probably the most recent fullscale proposal ‘in tis area from the side of philosophy"—has been taken up by Nea CCaomsky in “s program for the stady of grammar which, if it were ‘0 succeed, might stem to justify the earlier intuitions of rationalist, Blilosophers and to sive a hew grounding to this ancient quest" GRAMMAR FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES Wis a constant theme in modern (postatructualist) thought that the search for common ground in conflicts of thi Kind may in the last resort be file. Indeed, 10 atempt to resolve them is, paradoxically, to revert to the very strcturalism whose validity is at issue, since ft is itself an attempt to postulate a further A Prion| which wil subtend both structuralism and’ post-strucuralism, Atitudes Toward the Data of Linguistics Nonetheless, there are common concerns among linguists which might ‘form a basis for an empirical debate. The mos central ofthese common otcems is unquestionably the nature ofthe data bese for linguists, The a priori grammarian finds the dats supplied by "inition." that {is private data supplemented with privat judgments of grammatical, ntrely adequate as evidence concerning speciie grammatical rule. For the EOG linguist, such data have only marginal status they exit ‘only as reformed scraps of previous discourses, and, stipped of = context, they elicit intersubjectvely shared judgments about prammat- ‘eaity only to the extent that an obvious content ean be reconstructed for them, or that they conform to the more sedimented conventions for constructing discourses o, it must be added, that they violate or agree with explicit social canons conceming “ood gramnan "Wis (97RD hawt ein Hane Lach Unteschancr a port ‘ou oper wit Rus tary of es ete twentrcenary Se cose aga ens some enh fo dsinpish te mening exons of ey) lane" GD, aed eventualy om thn eae of gues. Wis tacs ey ee leing fom Hise 1 Camap and Coors “Chomly ws fact bi ok ‘Cana, as Carap os of Hote, "The eypeprerpivien of een pana bt of bes oe. An xpeily ‘vous itn fund ln Gres (9P4ah wb ln sete (ei edeavoring stop his ec and Ble at ke ee the same ') Jo sendwvrng op Hs esas an Bl i aing ke be foe sameSince a prior grammars a set of rules and structures held to precede Aiscourse and therefore to be constant across all contests, the 2 prio srammarian is apt to view the sort of decontextuaiztion which char fcterizesintutional data as a prerequisite to linguistic analysis, rather than an unfortunate limitation of such data. Actual discourse is always contextualized. Linguists who study spoken language, even when it Is twanseribed, are rarely tempted to reduce it completely to abstract pattems related by transformations of to suggest that its fully deter= mined by grammatical rules, The EOG linguist is likely to argue that ‘the recurrent partials encountered in real speech are only fragmentary captured by the standard notion of “grammatical rales” Attitades Toward Temporaity Another diffrence betwen the two styles of linguistics is one of attude toward temporality (see Linell 1982:35-7), It fllows from the APGP ‘hat a grammar is a static entity, an objet, which is fully present at alltime inthe mind ofthe speaker. Tis therefore essentially stemporal, that is, synchronic. It is moreover homogeneous; even if te conceived ‘of as modular, these modules are internally homogeneous, presumably simultaneously present, and are assumed to be interrelated by clearly statable “nontrivial principles” From the EOG perspective, on the ‘other hand, language isa real-time activity, whose regularities are always provisional and are continually subject to negotiation, renovation, and abandonment. Moreover, these regularities ae not homogeneous, Dut are of many diferent kinds, no one of which can be singled out and ‘denied visi-vis the others as “grammar.” We need only look at the ‘question of word order to find an obvious phenomenon whose status with respect to “grammar” is widely acknowledged to be ambiguous Bat actual spoken language is replete with recurent phenomena which are rarely assigned to “grammar.” Indeed, some of the most striking regularities are those known as idioms, Sgures of specch, turns of Dhrase, proverbs, saying, clichés, and so on—the very examples of texebuilding components whose a prior satus between “grammar Ads er seve ps of examples nog “eo nd “paroe”—an ds ‘om shes of care nae “ena? mt er othe nal ome ‘Feodeavor when purpose, he sens ube mare wage, ‘ses fa) “prpse” ths nits te purpose od the ens one outlets of Ege eval ecm prc te egpste va ote Iwo vneses nen ped. Yes conser pat of Grea pest dens oe th vali of her own pvt Jaden cosesng the wd Say osm EMERGENT GRAMMAR 121 snd “lexicon” has so often been debated. (See, for example, Matthews 1976 Ii significant that Andrew Pawley devoted considerable part ofhis classes and public lctare [Pawley 1986] at LSA/TESOL Institute to the study of such “Yormulas”.) ‘The dats, problematics, and methodology of linguistics cannot but be profoundly influenced by such considerations as these. The APGP is indiferent to prior tens, indee its doctrine of absolute freedom in the creation of sentences within the rule system ofthe grammar ensures that the enormously high proportion of repetitive or partly repetitive luerances which characterize all varieties of actual of speech are weated descriptively in the same terms as such bizare Sctional sentences as “The woman died in 70,000 B.C, who invented the wheel” (given as an etample in 2 recent published paper). Its sesumption of the prior Bvenness of linguistic categories tke Noun, Pronoun, Proper Name, ani so on makes any generalization about the contexts in which ‘The prepositions are thus analogous to case markers, oleh as egative snd akan as accusative. The point to be made is that the overt case ‘markers oleh “erative” ang akan "accusstve" appear preferentially in ‘hore forms—the lexical transitive agent and the pronominal transitive patient—which are least prefered in global discourse terms, and in ‘Which therefore the case relationship is most explicit. tis especially interesting that these forms are not categorical, that i,t ot da, cars more perl a8 independ pronoun he ext ak spars be ssid eject of the peptone and nresigy, ot ‘set wth he expt estas an Buta Fae (i885, we a2 ‘Sample ode teat «peptone preceding nai es, weing ha wat fly pammatcoed ay an secu fom: Fee sot te spre! shmop [sveapnent fhe ald ser al on marseme aan ae “> ah (aha win dae bone saad ae ano fm is, ammaticied; objet forms without the prepoition are sso found. Bur where the preposition appear itis almost alvays with @ pronoun rather than with @ lexical noun. (Cause Structure In Backgrounding In backgrounded discourze—discourse in which generic remarks and comments are made, mouves are being attributed, landscapes and other ‘cinis of settings described, and so on-—the Prefered Argument Struc tur if replaced by one in which lexical nouns are more fequent in all roles. Consider, for example, a passage such as the folowing: 1H) maka orang Malaka semusaya menutop pints rumahays find poople Malcea altotitem shut door bowser rata aduish beraliing orong ita teberapa matrs ity mabok, {hd then alaround sees the many’ snilors the drvnk yang ada memechabian pints-pinty rumah ore, rome, brokedowa doors house. pele an yang ada mengsjar perempuan-perempuan beylan, fd tome chated women salting “and te people of Malacos would al st their doors, an around sie eects there would besos geting drunk, and smashing down oor, and etasing women as they walked” Inthis kind of discourse, no single topic is earied through the discourse, but a variety of diferent topics occur. Consequently, lexical nouns are ‘: confined to the role of transitive patient, but oocur freely in all postions, for example: 5) orang Mase smus-ny pita rama “the people of Malacca sould al st thir door” ‘To these examples may be added the examples already discussed from the passage about Raffles: (6) maka sacaritart adatnyn ia berkerea pada pete peng nd Giiy babies be drive on sfiernoons “and everyday was hie custom to eo for a deve ia the afernoo ssaka pada tar tu Yereta_menanti diate Ind on day that cage remain stdoor “hut on that day his cringe remained atthe door”tiada io man turn dari numahona fot be want godown fom househis “he didnot want to leave the house” Predication in Discourse ‘From the last example, backgrounding can be seen to involve not ‘merely lexical subjects, but a word arder which a ful noun or a ‘nonenclic pronoun precedes the verb. Indeed, these two aspect of ‘ackgrounding are not clearly to be difrentiated: a lencal ot pro- ‘nominal subject is likely to precede the verb in backgrounding precisely because almost always in Buckgrounding a sate or attribute is beng predicated of an entity, whereas in foregrounding events are being Feported in sequence involving the same agent. Hence the word ordet Subjec-Verb (SV) of backgrounding as distinct ftom the VS of fore: ‘rounding is not arbitrary, but emerges directly ffom the characteris ‘cally different roles of participants in backgrounding (predication) 2s ‘opposed to freprounding (reporting what happened). This acount of predation a8 a relationship which emerge from a certain discourse strategy can be compared to the account of predication. given by traditional and @ priori grammar, in which predication is held to exis, atleast implicitly, in all sentences, ‘The verbal preixes me(ng) and (for third person or nonspecifed agents) ds accompany a preverbal lexical agent or patintrespetively. ‘The fist ofthese, the SV clause type in which the'S is a transitive or intransitive agent, is referred to a8 the Active clause type, and the Second, in which the $ is a patient of transitive verb, is reerred to a the Passive (see Hopper 1983). Thus the following are examples of the Active and Passive fespectvey (P) maka orang. Malaka vemus.nye menutay int fumsh mya 4nd "people Malacca aivofthem close oor Bouse the “and the people of Malacca would shut their doors” (@) maka dus punch Kir-tanan ite dismatiban, ind two fads ght ef the PASS-kaot “and the wo ends ight and Tet are knotted” ‘These clauses with extended lexical noun subjets lend themselves to a slower tempo, a more static and less dynamic kind of discourse, than the “preferred” clause type with it terse cltcized arguments and lexical noun, if any, following the verb EMERGENT GRAMMAR 129 ‘This difference manifests itself ina dference of transitivity beeen the SV type and the Prefered clause type ‘referred Argument Strcture and Transiivity ““Transtvity” a used here is a relative erm referring to the desree ‘to which a clause approaches canonical transitivity. The parameters of ‘canonical wanstivity assumed there are those set forh in Hopper and ‘Thompson (1980, they include not only the presence ofan agent and ‘patient, but also the perfecivity ofthe action, the action's dynamicity land effciveness, the specificity of the patient. and the volitional involvement of the agent. ‘As already noted, the Ergative clause type contrasts with the 1wo other types (Active and Passive) a6 verbinitial to nouninitial, where ‘noun” can sand for either a lexical noun or an autonomous pronoun ‘There iin fact, more than @ mere word order difference involved ‘bere. For example, the "pasiv,” tha is, the patient-ver-agent sentence ‘ype, often lacks a recoverable agent its often used in the description ‘of artifacts, for example, much like the English passive, and in general ‘where a sate predation is made of a patent, asin: (®) sda pon apit Choa itu diperboat dari rot sepa ow PARTCL press Chinese the PASS=mske fom ratan bet “now the Chinese press is made fom te Best raten™ (10) maka dun puncha Kish kanan tu éi-mation End Wo ends left ght the PASS-Anot “and the two ends Fiht and lefare knoe” (11) arena binatng ink délapetan beberapa bar rene animal the PASStarve seven! day “because the apimals had ben saved for several 95" ‘The Brgative, on the other hand, asely lacks a age. tn wx euiely parallel way the “active.” that is the agen-verbpatient type of clause, may have a non-specibc (eg, indefinite, generic, abstract, non-indivi- uated) patent, while in the erpative nonspecific patients are rare: (12) eka slahaya sai, la memabal chara Inggers aba, maka find pigit tite” he wear” syle" Enlsh only” and ‘italaa in memaiai chara Chinn make storing pun tiads mengenl Hf he wear’ sie. Chinese then no-one sell sot know ty Lame fis stds of tpoken Pench Ur eaape Lambrecht fo appear.a orang pute adap Be man white idond “Ie wat pity, ely, tat he wore only English clothes, fr if he ha reid ke «Canes, n6 one would ever have take him fora European” ‘The active and the passive are thus complementary in discourse terms: the pasive is a patent-verb coasiruction whose agent 1s un~ ‘important, and the active is an ageatverb construction with a vague patient. The erative on the other hand reports an event in which two specific participants in the discourse interact. Now it can be shown that the ergative clause type, mos frequently manifested in ts Prefered ‘Argument Structure form, is more transitive than the other two clause {ypes presented here, the Subject-Verb-Object type ("Active") and the Patint-Verb-Agent type (“Passive”), This means thatthe erative clause type is more likely in actual texts to rate higher on an average forthe \wanstivity features than the other two types, actual counts (Hopper 1983:80-81) yielded an average of 8.62 “plus” parameters (out of 10, ‘parameters for the Erative aguinst 478 and 526 forthe Passive and Active type respectively. Transtviy, with its semantic and structural oncomitans, thus emerges ffom the discourse situation in which an event involving two speciic participants in the discourse is being reported, one of which, the agent, is an on-going topic and the other, the patent, may also be topical or may be new or re-introduced; in either case, the patient is an actual participant of the discourse, and ‘ot merely’ generic concept Temight be asked why in general terms there should be this corelation between transitivity and foreprounded events, and whether an intra sitive action is unable to qualify as a foregrounded event? Of course ‘many events in a discourse are intransitive, yet they are in a distinct minority in foregrounding. More natural seems to be the situation in ‘which 2 sequenced event has @ limiting object, a second partcinaat. against which a subsequent event canbe sequenced. In an inquiry into {this question (Hopper and Thompson 1979), Sandra Thompson and I pointed out that intransitive ations which are part of an event sequence equi some other kind of limit! (12) T smoked a ciarete and (then) lft the room (04) 1 Tsnoked and (theo) le the room. ‘We want to add something to the verb to play out the fist action before the second is launched, In these sorts of contexts, the verbal object plays a limiting role. Inransitive events, which of tourse have ro second participant, are usually limited with a time adverbial; and there are interesting exceptions such as “dine,” “pray,” “dance,” and ters, in which the limiting factor is some kind of socially prescribed. vent boundary. What they have in common is @ unified role in the fensiricton of a narrative, that 35, the Kind of discourse in which ‘events are reported in sequence Js ffom such natural ways of constructing dscourse—“text-buld- ing” to use Becker's (1979) insightful term—hat the phenomens we think of as “grammar,” such asthe clasication of verbs into transitive ard intransitive, perfective and imperfective, and 50 01, develop and ‘become sedimented [A Debate over “Fanetonaism” Two recent critical tacks undertaken by proponents ofa priori grammar Ihave claimed to undermine work in the emergence of grammar bY suggesting (a) that there is @ fundamental mismatch between the data Ofsentence grammar andthe data of “discourse grammar” (eg, Morgan 1861, and (that "functionalism” cannot be a grounding for structural prenomens unless all known linguistic structures can be assigned 2 funtional explanation (eg. Sadock 1984) ‘In regard to the first of thes, itis obviously the case that since the study of sentence grammar is underaken from the point of view of {he APGP, itis unlikely that it will ever reach a point where it $8 capable of being applied mesningfully to discourse; consequently in prctcal terms, and very conveniently for some, the tasks of linguistics ‘mast remain confined to the working out of the calculus ofthe structures ofimaginary utterances (shielded, perhaps, by some disclaimer such a5, “competence”, occasionally supplemented by reference to equally im agnary uses 10 which such utterances might be put ‘erat misunderstanding heen hasta do mith an oversimpliction in the contrast “sentence gammar—discourse grammar,” which a ‘umes thatthe centrality ofthe Sentence as a unit is axiomatic and universally agreed upon, and that only the relationship between Sen- teaces and discourse is at issue. The Sentence isin fact by no means ‘unproblematic; discourse studies by Goodwin (1979) and Cumming (2984), among others, have pointed to 2 secondary emergence of the Sentence either asa collaborative enterprise (Goodwin) or asa thetorical smalgamation of clauses (Cumming) ‘The problems with the Sentence ‘est at every level—historical, ontogenetic, psychological, and univer- sahgammatical Several linguists (eg: Kalmar 1978, Linell 1979:62~71, Haris 198018) have noted the obvious dependency between the Sentence and writen language, specially in the Western grammatical: ‘thetoicl tradition. Before conclusions about “sentence grammer” can ‘be accepted, they must be anchored in studies proving the autonomy ofthe Sentence. Few linguists will any longer accep its axiomatic satus in an abstract theory. These studies must, moreover, be ones which do not themselves proceed from the assumption of the autonomy of ‘he Sentence, but test the value ofthe unit Sentence viedvis competing postulated whits such as clause, paragraph, topicchain and so on. The challenge toa prior linguistics is profound. The assumed priority and autonomy of the Sentence are at the head of a line of implications hich lead to the “modularity” of syaax, semantics, and pragmatics — ‘the separation of structure from meaning, and meaning ftom use: "The ‘money, and the cow that you ean buy with it” (Witgenstein 1958:#120 [o45p. ‘Similarly with those who believe they have discovered a “funcion- alist fllay"—the alleged fallacy that “functionalism” must fil 0 long as one single grammatical fat cannot be assigned a discourse functional explanation (eg. Sadock 1984), Here too there is stron assumption that grammar is an a prior set of abstract niles and structures whose nature is not in dispute. The supposed dispute over “functionaism” {is eld to consist inthe choice between two positions: either grammar 's redundant, being wholly derivative of function, of funtion is ire! vant, being a separate system only in part isomorphic with structure, In order to disprove the fist of these two positions, it s necessary only to show that some phenomenon universally agreed to be “pratt matical” cannot be related to any phenomenon agreed to be “fine. tional” But the terms of the debate presuppose agreement about the deterministic view of grammar as a static, priors, complete system. Such view is ideologically at odds with the view of grammar as provisional and emergent, not isolaable in principle ‘fom general Strategies for constructing discourses, Until such fundamental philo- sophical diferences can be reconciled, the very nature af "funeion™ and the role of “pragmatics” remain moot. Indeed the term "prag- ‘matis” itself must be put on probation as long asi s understood to be opposed to syntax and semantics as discrete modules competing for priority. CONCLUSION ‘As I suggested carer in the leture no single analysis o set of Kngustic evidence will decisively validate the Emergence of Grammar approach lover the A Prior: Grammar Postulate approach to language specific EMERGENT GRAMMAR 133 cxamples and speciic counterexamples are meaningless unless the pre feppositions which underie statements about language ae agreed upon, ‘We have, in other words, what might be called two competing ideologies, coresponding broadly to the two major intellectual trends of our day: finicturalism, with ite belef in and attention to a prio! structures of fonsciousness and behavior, and hermeneatics, with ite equally frm Conviction that temporality and context are continually reshaping the elusive present. REFERENCES ‘dla bin Ad! Kai, 1932 kya Abu, Sinepore: Malaya Pub hing Howse. (sy Lire Series No.) ecker AL 1998 Testing epinemolgy, and sete in Javanse thatow teste: The inptaion af ray: Ema a Soult Aan oherce spo by AL. Bese ad Arms, Yengyany 2th, Novweod, Ri abo ecke, AL. I968 Toward a portrait vw of lngugelering: A ‘hor cay. Aa Epsumalogy fore Langue ence by A Cues, 21-2in Baroie Wayne State Univers Pee cumming Sun 1986 The veneer in Chine Sudes in Language £3. pag Die, Wie, 1958 Gente Seren, Star Testo Ds Bol Jon, 185, Competing motrtionsinicy nf by John sina, 343-36, meta Dewi ‘ie, James M1977 [1973} Hussars oneption of ‘The Gramma” and ontemporaylgaiics, Reprinted tr Readies on Emu Muser?s ‘uel Ivegnons, ob Mohanty, 3761 The Hue Niall favce,P PAR 1675 Dunne mal emis vls Pee Masomneve (Gro, sims, 1988. Tope conan aco quaiatne Sos Tene sy. Amardeep ‘eosin, Cave 1979 The nerativeconsction of keen venday Conertton Eeenéay Langage Studie in ihsomathodlgy 2 by Sore Patan 97-22, Now Yon vngon Pubs ren, Georgia 1978 Seman and tact reply. Bloomington: Indiana ‘avety Dre arin, Roy. 1980, Thelnguagesaers. London: Duckworth opps, ul) 1979 Obeetions the poly of es ad apc in sree langage MUSA # la Roped a Stas ope Seen 18 ppt, aul. 19. Aspect and foregounding in disoue, by Tal ‘Given, 313242 isu and Syntax, New Yor Academe res. Hooper Pal 1983. Ere, pve abd cine fn Maly haat. In aus pepe on nine. y Pn Wendie 30, NY ‘dome PesHopner, Paul J, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1979. A discourse explanation for “speci” and unspeied’ objects in users grammar, Paper presented a the Annual Moving of the Linguist Society of America, Lan Angels ‘Hopper, Pal J, and Sana &. Thompeon. 1980, Transit in amon sot scours Language $6:3251-299, Hopper, Paul J, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1984, The dsoure tals for lexical catigrcs in universal gamma. Language 604,703-75, Kalmar, ven, 1978 Literacy andthe senence, Paper prosented whe Annial Mectng ofthe Educational Resear Association, Toronto, Tambwech, Kaud. To appear. On the status of SVO sentences in, Frech scours. Coherence and rounding in dacouse, od by Rost Tomlin Amsterdam: Job Benjamins BV. ‘nel, Per. 1982. The writen language bis in ngs. Linkopg: Univesity ‘of Linktping, Stages in Commoniaion © Matthews, PHL 1936, Review of Jerod Sadock, Toward a lingusic theory of ‘ecch a, General Linguistics 16236 202, ‘Morgan, Jer. 1981, Some observations on disburse and setence presiar ‘Stade in te Lingus Sener 11 157-108, Newmeyer FJ. 1984, Review of Loraine Oblr and Lise Meno, cds, Excep- ‘ional language and lingusicn. Langage 60:4.969-975, Paley, Andrew. 1986, Lecalization. Languages and Linguistic: The later. ‘ependence of theory. data and application, oa. by Deborah Tatnen and James E. Alas, 98-120. Georgetown University Round Table ea Lins ‘Bae and Linguists 1985. Washington, D.C: Georetown Uaivesty Pes, ‘Sedo Jerod M1984, Whither radical prapmatic®” Meaning, form, and we ‘i comxe Linguistic application, ed. by Deborah Scifi 139-19 Georgetown Univesity Round Table oa Languages and Lingus 198 Washingon, DC: Georgetown University Pres Wilks, Yorck 4.1972. Grammar, meaning an the machine analysis of ane ‘uae. London: Rouedge and Kegan Pal. ‘Wineenscn, Lads, 1958, Philbwopical investigations, The English Text of ‘he Third Baton, i. GEM. Anicombe. New Yor Macmillan,