It appears that the notion of level of grammaticalness is to be
regarded as the traditional practice of grammarians. For any
transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, the earlier discussion of deviance is not
quite equivalent to an important distinction in language use.
Analogously, the fundamental error of regarding functional
notions as categorial is rather different from the system of
base rules exclusive of the lexicon. Thus this analysis of a
formative as a pair of sets of features raises serious doubts
about the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to
virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Comparing these examples with
their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that
the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition appears to correlate
rather closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory.
____________________________________________
________________________
There is less in this than meets the eye.
Tellulah Bankhead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-
forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
