Hallo conlangers!

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:55:21 +0100 And Rosta wrote:

> Replying in this msg to Ray and then Joerg:
> 
> R A Brown, On 20/04/2012 16:33:
> [...]
> > I'm confused. Trees and stacks ain't the same animals.

Indeed they aren't!
 
> The hearer hears a sequence of words and has to apply some sort of 
> psycholinguistic processing (that probably involves stacks) to
> arrive at a structure in which words are integrated into a single
> tree.

Where is the evidence that the neuronal procedure in which the
syntax tree is built up involves stacks?

> > Also "the probability of an item fading from memory while it
> > is on the stack is a function of the time it is on the stack
> > and of the number of items on the stack" surely in itself
> > suggests that the human mind does not use a stack structure.
> 
> ?? When coupled with facts about the degree of psycholinguistic
> difficulty hearers have in parsing different sentences?

Surely, some sentences are easier to parse than others.  Syntax
trees can become *very* convoluted.

> > The point is surely that Fithians simply do not have that
> > problem; what is on that stack stays on that stack until
> > such time as it is popped off.
> >
> > All mere experience as a computer scientist has led me to
> > believe that language has to be handled by parse _trees_ or
> > pattern matching or some mix of both - certainly by
> > something rather more sophisticated than a stack!

Indeed, indeed!

> > Jeffrey's experiment with Fith was to produce a language
> > would could be handled solely by using a stack structure
> > without the recourse to trees or anything more complicated.
> > I know of no model that will let English be processed
> > simply by using a stack any more than 1 + 2 × 3 - 4 ÷ 5 by
> > using *only* a stack.
> 
> AFAIK nobody has claimed that English can be parsed using only
> a stack or that what makes Fith remarkable and worthy of interest
> is that its syntax is sufficiently simple for it to be parsable
> using only a stack. If anybody were to make either claim, I'd
> disagree with them.

OK, so Ray and I have misunderstood you.  Point taken.

>       (For clarity's sake, I would not agree that the simplicity
> of Fith syntax makes it especially interesting; there are plenty
> of conlangs with comparably simple syntax. It's only the
> complexities arising from certain of the stack conjunctions that
> are interestingly weird.)

Sure.

> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 20/04/2012 16:37:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:55:09 +0100 And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >> R A Brown, On 20/04/2012 08:38:
> >> [...]
> >> As you'll probably remember, Fith has a class of words called (IIRC)
> >> 'stack operators', some of which do counternatural stuff like
> >> reordering items on the stack. There's general agreement among us
> >> all that it's certain of these stack operators that make Fith weird.
> >
> > They at least contribute to its weirdness.  Another "weird" thing,
> > likewise banned from Shallow Fith, is lingering - pushing something
> > onto the stack in order not to use it until much later.
> 
> Lingering per se is not weird; it's a function of the processing
> ability of speakers rather than of the grammar, and natlangs could
> be lingered in too. But what is unnatural is the variety of
> lingering that allows one sentence to be discretely embedded within
> another.

Fair.

>       Even in that case, though, if you take the view that langue
> generates the set of sentences, then the fact that some sentences
> do or don't happen to get embedded discretely within others is a
> matter of parole rather than langue, and speakers who choose to
> linger in Fith could equally well choose to linger in English.

Certainly, human languages do *in theory* allow for such deeply
nested structures in which any ordinary human listener would lose
track of it even though the structure is actually grammatical!
It is indeed the *kind* of embedding that lingering allows that
is weird - and the Fithians seem not to have any problems with it ;)

> Therefore if Miles Forster were excited about exploring whether
> he is capable of lingering, he needn't learn or recreate Fith;
> he could attempt it in any language.

Depends on how tightly you define "lingering".  The word is not
part of standard linguistic terminology, and the *only* usage of
it as a term for a pattern of grammatical embedding I have met
with so far is with Fith, where it refers to a particular kind
of embedding which results from the stack-based structure of that
language.  I would thus not apply it to human languages.
  
> [...]
> >> Fith without its operators would still be parsed using this basic
> >> operation of combination.
> >
> > I don't really understand what you mean.  I think that you have
> > misunderstood some things.  Stacks aren't really useful in parsing
> > languages; programming language parsers operate with syntax trees,
> > not with stacks (except for those languages that have been *designed*
> > for being parsed with stacks, such as Forth), and I am pretty certain
> > that syntax trees are also used in parsing human languages with a
> > computer (I don't know for sure because I never was involved with
> > natural language processing).  The neurological patterns that build
> > up in our brains when we understand language are probably much more
> > like syntax trees than stacks!
> 
> The patterns that build up are like trees, but the process by which
> sequences of words are built into trees uses stacks. -- That is the
> claim, based on the evidence available to us.

So where is the evidence?  I haven't seen it.

> > If stacks were used by human beings to parse languages, why, then,
> > is there *not a single natlang* that allows for lingering and
> > similar tricks?
> 
> Arguably all natlangs allow it. The reasons why it doesn't occur in
> usage would have to do with severe memory limitations  and also
> functional considerations.

Gobbledigook.

> [...]
> >> I don't think the mere fact of your skepticism renders it
> >> controversial, especially in the context of the meagre amount
> >> of informed knowledge we have collectively adduced in our
> >> discussions, all of what little evidence has been adduced
> >> during which has been supplied by me.
> >
> > Sh, be careful.  Ray knows *a lot* about linguistics (though he,
> > like me, is on the other side of the generativist/functionalist
> > divide), and also quite a bit about computers - he has degrees
> > in classical philology *and* computer science.  I have a hunch
> > that both Ray and I (who has a degree in computer science as
> > well) understand computers and parsing algorithms better than
> > you do ;)
> 
> I have no doubt about that, or that there are many other areas of 
> linguistics that one or both of you (and many others on the list
> too) know much more than me about. Even in those areas where you
> are an autodidact, I read your thoughts with interest and
> appreciation.

Thank you.

> But the crux of this current discussion is a matter of
> psycholinguistics. I have already declared, quite sincerely and
> accurately, my lack of expertise in this area, but I have adduced
> the only evidence that has so far been adduced (namely, a feeble
> appeal to authority, and some quite compelling empirical evidence).
> I claim not that what I've said about psycholinguistic parsing is
> correct, but rather than on the basis of the evidence brought to the 
> discussion so far, the provisional conclusion must be that what I've
> said is correct, since the evidence adduced all points in the same
> direction.

I am unconvinced.  I have grave problems with the kind of
linguistics you are practicing.  You base your conclusions on
introspection based on *one single language*, mixed with Platonic
idealism, a philosophy that sinks like a stone when it is applied
to a universe that is not static.

You say that you lack expertise in the area of psycholinguistics.
Fine.  That sets you apart from the common kind of crackpot who
would never admit that he lacks expertise in *any* relevant area.
But what, then, makes you so sure that you know how the human
brain processes linguistic utterances?

> [...]
> > I agree with you that FIFO lists (queues) are not useful in
> > analyzing natural languages - but nor are stacks.  You need
> > syntax trees.
> 
> Does your "analysing natural languages" include psycholinguistic
> parsing? If it doesn't then your point isn't relevant. If it does,
> then disagreeing with me -- however agreeable you find it to do so
> -- in the face of the available evidence is not a profitable
> contribution to the discussion.

You take quite a mouthful for someone who lacks expertise in
psycholinguistics.

> [...]
> >> It seems to (again, a possibly obtuse) me that head--dependent
> >> ordering and the LIFO/FIFO ordering of the processing list
> >> (with the auxiliary assumption about only the first item being
> >> accessible) are orthogonal.
> >
> > Head/dependent ordering is a parameter that can be switched;
> > both the head and the dependents are co-ordinate nodes in the
> > syntax tree, as you as a Chomskyan linguist certainly know.
> > It seems likely to me that stack-based languages with a word
> > order different from Fith could be constructed as well.
> 
> Good.
> 
> BTW, it's odd to find myself called a Chomskyan for the second time
> in a week. The first time it happened I responded that I wasn't,
> but was nevertheless mildly flattered by the accusation.

Oops, I am sorry, and used the term "Chomskyan" in a broad and
informal meaning.  I mean that you seem to me to follow a broadly
generativist approach and attempt to unearth universal truths
about Language from deep analysis of a single language, which is
something that Chomsky openly admitted to, and many linguists
(i. e., just about everybody in the functional-typological camp)
consider fallacious.

>       If neither me nor Chomsky would consider me to be a Chomskyan,
> are there nevertheless certain criteria that would lead you still to 
> consider me a Chomskyan? For example, I would happily confess to
> being a Structuralist of some ilk: would you consider all
> Structuralists to be Chomskyans? (Was Saussure a proto-Chomskyan?)

No, not all Structuralists are Chomskyans.  I have stated above
what I meant when I was calling you a "Chomskyan".

> [...]
> > Fith's way of parsing the language is utterly different from the
> > human way, that's the point and nothing else.  You have been
> > entertaining the notion that the human language centre used
> > stacks to parse natural languages, while both Ray and I (and
> > probably most others in this thread) doubt that.
> >
> > Even without the stack operators, Fith would not behave like a
> > human language - lingering would still be possible *without
> > limits*.  Lingering has *nothing* to do with _shen_, _du_ and
> > their ilk - it is a consequence of the stack-based parsing
> > method itself.
> 
> It's not only a consequence of the stack-based parsing method.
> The limits or limitlessness of lingering depends on the capacity
> and durability of working memory.

Sure.

> [...]
> > You mean, an imperfect implementation of a stack with a finite
> > storage capacity, which drops the bottom element(s) when it
> > overflows to make room for new elements on the top.
> 
> An implementation using really crap hardware/wetware.

Obviously ;)

>       But -- relying only on introspection here and not on
> experimental results --

Oh, now the cat is out of the bag.  Your entire edifice rests on
introspection, which most linguists would not consider trustworthy
evidence.

>        I don't think it's as simple as just losing the bottom item
> when the stack gets too full; I think the breakdown happens in less 
> systematic ways.

Certainly.  Something highly salient is likely to survive longer
in short-term memory than other stuff.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:34:53 +0100 R A Brown wrote:

> On 20/04/2012 18:55, And Rosta wrote:
> > Replying in this msg to Ray and then Joerg:
> 
> Dealing only with the reply to me.

Fair; I have dealt with his reply to me above.
 
> > R A Brown, On 20/04/2012 16:33:
> [snip]
> >> off that word and make the integration. However, two
> >> things are -not_ explained: - firstly, how do I know if
> >> the two words are to be integrated or not? Not a
> >> trivial question if you actually writing a program to
> >> implement this 'algorithm.'
> >
> > That's part of the local ambiguity resolution that is
> > abstracted away from. To deal with local ambiguity you
> > have to allow for parallel parses, or backtracking, or
> > whatever. My point is that there's evidence for the
> > involvement of stacks in psycholinguistic parsing, not
> > that stacks on their own are sufficient.
> 
> If stacks on their own are not sufficient, psycholinguistic
> parsing is not relevant to Fith.

Right.

> >> - secondly, what happens to the integrated item? Does
> >> get pushed back onto the stack or is pushed onto a
> >> different stack which gradually builds up the sentence
> >>  or is it placed in a parse tree, or what?
> >
> > Pushed back onto the stack. Each item on the stack is a
> > tree fragment.
> 
> In other words, you are talking about a stack being used in
> order to construct a *TREE*.

Apparently he does.

> The point I maintain is that there _is_ an essential
> difference between Fith and human natlangs.  Parsing the
> latter is not trivial and all attempts I've seen involve
> some sort of tree structure.  Even the "box analysis" we did
> at school in the 1950s was a tree structure.
> 
> Jeffrey's aim in creating Fith was to construct a language
> that was passable using _only the stack structure_.

Right.  That was his aim, and nothing else.  It seems that And
on one side, and you and me on the other, have been talking past
each others!

>       The
> name, as I am sure you know, was derived from Forth - a
> *stack based* programming language dating back to the 1970s.
> 
> Jeffrey was (and probably still is) a computer programmer -
> tho he did have a fondness for BASIC   ;)
> 
> He was intrigued by Forth and wondered if he could construct
> an conlang along the same lines; he was deliberately trying
> to construct something _different_ from human language.

Yes.  It is a thought experiment on what a language could look
like that doesn't require syntax trees for parsing but can be
parsed with a simple stack.

> [...]
> 
> What you claimed on the 19th April was:
> {quote}
> I'm sure this thread is a repetition of another that only
> fairly recently occurred. I posted in this one only in order
> to point out the recrudescence of the LIFO myths that have
> become part of Conlang folk-linguistics.
> 
> I suppose it might be a bit curmudgeonly of me to make to
> quash the Fith myths, since despite their falsity (at least
> in so far as our current collective knowledge allows us to
> judge), they afford much speculative pleasure to conlangers.
> But I continue to cleave to the notion that engelanging has
> some genuine potential scientific and philosophical value,
> and therefore it seems to me desirable to seek to
> discriminate between truth and falsity in matters such as this.
> {unquote}
> 
> I am not at all clear what you mean by "LIFO myths."  That
> the human mind cannot or does not use any stack structure?
> But surely Jörg's "Shallow Fith" shows that it can!  But the
> evidence I know is that such stacks are, er, shallow.

Indeed.

>       You
> have not shown that the notation that humans would find the
> everyday use of a language needing deep stack difficult or
> impossible is a "myth."
> 
> The reference to "Fith myth" seems to me at best misleading.

It is nonsense.  There is no "Fith myth"; Fith is simply very
different from any human natlang in terms of the data structures
necessary to parse it.  Fith can be parsed with a stack *instead*
of a syntax tree; whether the human brain uses (very shallow)
stacks in order to *build* syntax trees is irrelevant here.

> You yourself have apparently admitted above that natlangs
> cannot be parsed by just using a stack because of "local
> ambiguities."  Fith was created as a language which is
> parsable using only a stack - i.e. it is intended, like
> Forth, to be a stack-based language.  I quote from Jeffrey
> Henning:
> "Now, one vital quality of such a language is that you have
> to be able to tell immediately, upon encountering a word,
> whether it is an "operand" (to be pushed on the stack) or an
> "operator" (to modify what's on the stack).  This was clear
> in this simple example, but it isn't true of English  in
> general, because most words have multiple definitions
> spanning multiple parts of speech."

Yes.

> Whether Jeffrey's "operators" (stack conjunctions) are
> 'weird' or not is another matter.  If you are going to have
> a purely stack-based language you'll need some sort of
> operators.
> 
> Fith was an attempt to derive a stack-based language à la
> Forth to handle rather more than the narrow domain of
> computer programming.  That, surely, is the interest.  How
> could/ would such a language work?

That is just the question Jeffrey was exploring.

> It may be that a better stack-based language could be
> derived.  That in itself would, I would have thought, be
> sufficiently interesting.

Certainly.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1