the weakest sentence here is the first..."by now it is well established that"..why not go with "Tannenhaus and Carlson established that".
The organization is sensical, but the abstract seems a bit spare...the last paragraph is interesting, but feels like it needs more detail, I'm left hanging, somewhat.
there are several short stative sentences..."The processing model is grammar-based"....tho important, may not be punchy enough to sell this. "traditional deletion-under-identity idea" is periphrastic. can you replace "facilitates a formal expression" with "helps to formally express", may help. Last sentence, last paragraph, "this computational perspective" is a lot to wade through for the content.
The dissertation reference, while appreciated, is not appropriate. While the world has been saturated with invited presentations about my approach to ellipsis, it has been spared any citable version of that work. If you want to include a reference, we can pre-cite the article I'm writing for Mike Putnam's Survive volume (`Hypothetical Reasoning, Derivational Identity, and ACD'). But if we don't want to do this we can just cite my MoL paper for the hypothetical reasoning, and say we're working within a copy-theory where deletion is under derived tree identity. Another mildly distressing but not enough to be painful fact is that `voice mismatches' have since me and merchant (only the latter of which appears in print) been describable in terms of exact identity. Furthermore, we didn't need Tannenhaus and Carlson to establish the acceptability of these kinds of sentences; it's been a shameful skeleton in the syntactic closet for a long time (and has become less shameful since we've had accounts of it, at least since Hardt's '93 dissertation). Still, if it makes psycholinguists happy, who am I to insist on abstract verisimilitude?
3 comments:
the weakest sentence here is the first..."by now it is well established that"..why not go with "Tannenhaus and Carlson established that".
The organization is sensical, but the abstract seems a bit spare...the last paragraph is interesting, but feels like it needs more detail, I'm left hanging, somewhat.
there are several short stative sentences..."The processing model is grammar-based"....tho important, may not be punchy enough to sell this. "traditional deletion-under-identity idea" is periphrastic. can you replace "facilitates a formal expression" with "helps to formally express", may help. Last sentence, last paragraph, "this computational perspective" is a lot to wade through for the content.
The dissertation reference, while appreciated, is not appropriate. While the world has been saturated with invited presentations about my approach to ellipsis, it has been spared any citable version of that work. If you want to include a reference, we can pre-cite the article I'm writing for Mike Putnam's Survive volume (`Hypothetical Reasoning, Derivational Identity, and ACD'). But if we don't want to do this we can just cite my MoL paper for the hypothetical reasoning, and say we're working within a copy-theory where deletion is under derived tree identity.
Another mildly distressing but not enough to be painful fact is that `voice mismatches' have since me and merchant (only the latter of which appears in print) been describable in terms of exact identity. Furthermore, we didn't need Tannenhaus and Carlson to establish the acceptability of these kinds of sentences; it's been a shameful skeleton in the syntactic closet for a long time (and has become less shameful since we've had accounts of it, at least since Hardt's '93 dissertation). Still, if it makes psycholinguists happy, who am I to insist on abstract verisimilitude?
ok, thanks to both commenters.
I've uploaded a corrected version. NB I expect to add some numbers or statistical claims from Chris later tonight.
Post a Comment