Foundations of Language Supplementary Series – serie

V AN KA TWIJ K / A Functional Grammar of Dutch Number Names 1 BARRON BRAINERD / On the Syntax of Certain Classes of Numerical Expressions 9 BARRON BRAINERD / A Transformational-Generative Grammar for Rumanian Numerical Expressions 41 BARRON BRAINERD and FRED C.

In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic research have been opened. The common characteristic of the majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must also meet the general requirements of present-day theories: coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena. In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature. Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language. As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of them will be waived, others com­ plemented. The papers of the present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter), others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g. Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski).

Various students of general linguistics and semantics quote and discuss Wittgenstein, among others, OGDEN and RICHARDS (1960), ULLMANN (1951, 1962), PAGLIARO (1952, 1957), WELLS (1960), REGNELL (1960) and 1 ZIFF (1960). For the most part however they quote the Tractatus and not 2 the Philosophical Investigations ; not all of them consider the most important ideas in the Tractatus but often discuss marginal points; above all they often make the discussion of Wittgenstein's ideas secondary to the development of their own thought. It should be added, moreover, that these students are exceptions. The large majority of language theorists, especially those with a philological background, have almost no know­ ledge of Wittgenstein's ideas. One scholar thinks that Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy rests upon a grotesque misunderstanding of the workings of language (HERDAN, 1962, Chapter 24). The present book seeks to draw the attention of students of general linguistics and semantics to the thought of both the early and the later Wittgenstein: not only the Philosophical Investigations but also the Tractatus is concerned with everyday language: Wittgenstein was thinking of the propositions of everyday language, when he affirmed that the proposition is a picture of reality (Chapter 1). This conception is very old, it is in fact found in Aristotle and it dominated ancient, mediaeval and modern rationalistic thought; only Locke, Vico and Leibniz criticized it strongly (Chapter 2).

This monograph owes its existence to certain puzzles in universal grammar and the theory of language which led the author to an investigation of word order in Sanskrit and its possible analyses and descriptions. Not unexpectedly, the raw material was found to be too vast for a first-hand treatment even to be attempted. Rather surprisingly, however, its inter­ pretations by Indian and Western theorists and grammarians turned out to be so greatly at variance, that an analysis of these interpretations seemed rewarding. Accordingly, theoretical issues within the framework of generative grammar had to be faced anew, and alternative solutions suggested them­ selves. In this connexion the Sanskrit grammarians proved not only in­ spiring but positively helpful. This book may invite the accusation that it wilfully mixes disciplines. There were alternatives: one could try to write a history of the subject; or construct a merely formal edifice, leaving it to others to test its adequacy; or else one could make the notorious attempt to stick to the facts, which is not only unilluminating but also bound to fail. Any such self-imposed restrictions seemed to conflict with the original intent. And so it was decided not only to make available the results of the investigation into Sanskrit word order, but also to introduce a theory of universal grammar to account for these and other results.

I. RATNAKIRTI. HIS PHILOSOPHICAL CONGENERS AND ADVERSARIES Ratnakirti flourished early in the 11th century A. D. at the University of Vi- kramasila, a member of the Yogacara-Vijnanavada school oflate Buddhist philosophy. Thakur characterizes Ratnakirti's writing as "more concise and logical though not so poetical" 1 as that of his guru, Jfianasrimitra, two of 2 whose dicta are focal points of the present work. From a translogical or absolute point of view , Ratnakirti endorses a form of 3 solipsistic idealism. The Sarhtdndntaradu$alJa , his proof of solipsism written from the standpoint ofthe highest truth (paramdrtha), concludes that an exter- nal nonmental continuum is impossible. In ultimate reality the cognizing sub- ject, its act of awareness, and the cognized object coalesce - all are fabrications superposed on what is really an indivisible evanescent now (svalak$alJa). 4 As Ratnakirti's predecessors have put it: There is neither an 'I' nor a 'he' nor a 'you' nor even an 'it'; neither the thing, nor the not-thing; neither a law nor a system; neither the terms nor the relations. But there are only the cognitive events of colourless sensations which have forms but no names.They are caught for a moment in a stream and then rush to naught. Even the stream is a fiction. That sensum of the moment, the purest particular, that advaya, the indivisible unit of cognition, that is the sole reality, the rest are all fictions, stirred up by time-honoured 5 convention of language which is itself a grand fiction.

The aim of this monograph is to expound the conceptions of temporalized modality at issue in various Arabic logical texts. I claim to have been able to make good logical sense of doctrines of which even the later Arab logicians themselves came to despair. In the process, a substantially new area of the history of logic has come into a clear view. I am indebted to Anne Cross (Mrs. Michael) Pelon and especially Mr. Bas van Fraassen for assistance in the research. Miss Dorothy Henle merits my thanks for preparing the difficult typescript for the printer and helping to see the book through the press. Also, I am grateful to the Editors of Foun­ dations of Language for inviting inclusion of the monograph in the Supple­ mentary Series of the journal. The present work is part of a series of studies of Arabic contributions to logic supported by research grants from the National Science Foundation. It affords me much pleasure to record my sincere thanks for this assistance.

The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of research in pro­ gress in the field of generative grammar in various parts of Europe.

This book is a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Utrecht. It was prepared under the supervision of Prof. Dr. H. Schultink. I would like to express my gratitude to him for his criticisms of earlier versions which led to many improvements, in particular with respect to the exposition of the argument. To my co-referent Dirk van Dalen, reader in the Department of Philo­ sophy (,Centrale Interfaculteit') of the University of Utrecht, I am greatly indebted for his valuable and fruitful suggestions about problems relevant to both linguistics and logic. Several ideas developed in this study owe their present concrete form to our many discussions. This thesis originates in syntactic research into the Aspects carried out in 1967 under the supervision of Albert Kraak, professor at the University of Nijmegen, who ever since gave much attention to my work in progress. I am very grateful to him for his careful and stimulating criticism as well as for the continuous support he gave me during these years. The present study closely relates to the work of my colleague Wim Klooster with regard to both its theoretical framework and its subject matter. Our joint work on the measurement of duration in Dutch is an integral part of the argument. I have greatly profited from the numerous discussions we have had.

o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical linguistics', 'applied lin­ guistics' (which, incidentally, has another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'. Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin­ guists tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar. Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify, however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo­ retical linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics.

Tbis inquiry may be thought of as a sequel to The Concepts of Value and as an extension of the brief core-vocabulary of aesthetic concepts found in one of the appendices to it.

This monograph owes its existence to certain puzzles in universal grammar and the theory of language which led the author to an investigation of word order in Sanskrit and its possible analyses and descriptions. Not unexpectedly, the raw material was found to be too vast for a first-hand treatment even to be attempted. Rather surprisingly, however, its inter­ pretations by Indian and Western theorists and grammarians turned out to be so greatly at variance, that an analysis of these interpretations seemed rewarding. Accordingly, theoretical issues within the framework of generative grammar had to be faced anew, and alternative solutions suggested them­ selves. In this connexion the Sanskrit grammarians proved not only in­ spiring but positively helpful. This book may invite the accusation that it wilfully mixes disciplines. There were alternatives: one could try to write a history of the subject; or construct a merely formal edifice, leaving it to others to test its adequacy; or else one could make the notorious attempt to stick to the facts, which is not only unilluminating but also bound to fail. Any such self-imposed restrictions seemed to conflict with the original intent. And so it was decided not only to make available the results of the investigation into Sanskrit word order, but also to introduce a theory of universal grammar to account for these and other results.

In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic research have been opened. The common characteristic of the majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must also meet the general requirements of present-day theories: coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena. In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature. Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language. As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of them will be waived, others com­ plemented. The papers of the present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter), others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g. Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski).

Various students of general linguistics and semantics quote and discuss Wittgenstein, among others, OGDEN and RICHARDS (1960), ULLMANN (1951, 1962), PAGLIARO (1952, 1957), WELLS (1960), REGNELL (1960) and 1 ZIFF (1960). For the most part however they quote the Tractatus and not 2 the Philosophical Investigations ; not all of them consider the most important ideas in the Tractatus but often discuss marginal points; above all they often make the discussion of Wittgenstein's ideas secondary to the development of their own thought. It should be added, moreover, that these students are exceptions. The large majority of language theorists, especially those with a philological background, have almost no know­ ledge of Wittgenstein's ideas. One scholar thinks that Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy rests upon a grotesque misunderstanding of the workings of language (HERDAN, 1962, Chapter 24). The present book seeks to draw the attention of students of general linguistics and semantics to the thought of both the early and the later Wittgenstein: not only the Philosophical Investigations but also the Tractatus is concerned with everyday language: Wittgenstein was thinking of the propositions of everyday language, when he affirmed that the proposition is a picture of reality (Chapter 1). This conception is very old, it is in fact found in Aristotle and it dominated ancient, mediaeval and modern rationalistic thought; only Locke, Vico and Leibniz criticized it strongly (Chapter 2).

This book is a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Utrecht. It was prepared under the supervision of Prof. Dr. H. Schultink. I would like to express my gratitude to him for his criticisms of earlier versions which led to many improvements, in particular with respect to the exposition of the argument. To my co-referent Dirk van Dalen, reader in the Department of Philo­ sophy (,Centrale Interfaculteit') of the University of Utrecht, I am greatly indebted for his valuable and fruitful suggestions about problems relevant to both linguistics and logic. Several ideas developed in this study owe their present concrete form to our many discussions. This thesis originates in syntactic research into the Aspects carried out in 1967 under the supervision of Albert Kraak, professor at the University of Nijmegen, who ever since gave much attention to my work in progress. I am very grateful to him for his careful and stimulating criticism as well as for the continuous support he gave me during these years. The present study closely relates to the work of my colleague Wim Klooster with regard to both its theoretical framework and its subject matter. Our joint work on the measurement of duration in Dutch is an integral part of the argument. I have greatly profited from the numerous discussions we have had.

Tbis inquiry may be thought of as a sequel to The Concepts of Value and as an extension of the brief core-vocabulary of aesthetic concepts found in one of the appendices to it. In terms of sheer numbers, most of the value concepts of our language are to be found in the area of human relations and of the aesthetic. There are also other value vocabularies, shorter but equally important, for example, the cognitive and logical. These and other objects of pbilosopbical study (for example, the question of "other minds") deserve the kind of empirical survey that has been made of moral and aesthetic notions, if only to test a priori approaches to them. In the present studyan even more determined empirical approach than that adopted for the first has been found necessary. Once the moral or human value vocabulary has been identified, sentential contexts for the use of the terms readily come to mind. In a study of the language of criticism, however, the vocabulary has first to be sought in the utterances of critics themselves and quoted in sufficient context to make their critical intentions clear. The outcome is that the present study is of great length, about half of it being quotations from critics. The rule adopted for arriving at tbis length go on collecting quotations as long as new types of appraisal came was to to light.

The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of research in pro­ gress in the field of generative grammar in various parts of Europe. The term 'generative grammar' must, however, be understood here rather broadly. What seemed to be an easily definable technical term several years ago is becoming more and more vague and imprecise. Research in generative gram­ mar is carried on according to rather diversified methodological principles and being a generative grammarian is often more a matter of confession than any adherence to the common line of methodology which can be traced back to the conception of grammatical description initiated by Noam Chomsky. The direct or indirect influence of this conception is, however, clearly recog­ nizable in most of the papers of this volume. The most difficult thing was, naturally enough, to select appropriate papers in the realm of semantics. Apart from the special trend in generative grammar referred to as 'generative semantics' (though here, too, we might ponder on what 'generative' really means) the term 'generative' is hardly employed in semantics. The search for semantic primes, the application of the methods of mathematical logic, the inquiry into the intricate relationships between syntax and semantics and the utilization of syntactic information in semantics are perhaps the most charac­ teristic traits of contemporary semantics. All of this, of course, is at no variance with the principles of generative grammar, on the contrary, most of it has been made possible through the achievements of generative grammar.

o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical linguistics', 'applied lin­ guistics' (which, incidentally, has another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'. Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin­ guists tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar. Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify, however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo­ retical linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics.

If we consider how theoretical operations belonging to the methodological inventory of linguistics are carried out (i. e. the way linguistic theories are set up), three main criteria suggest themselves for classifying them: (1) Both, nature and type of the aims of the scientific knowledge applied which allow to specify the epistemological interests as well as the theoretical impact constituting the purpose of linguistic operations; (2) the nature of the intellectual procedures in connection with which a set of intersubjectively acceptable operations should guarantee that current postulates of the theory of science be maintained; (3) the set of data serving as an empirical basis for the theories to be estab­ lished on the one hand and as a correlate for the further development, the testing and the evaluation of theories on the other hand. It is to be considered a basic concept (as well as a motive) of current text­ linguistic research that due to the linguistic analysis of discourses a further development of linguistics has set in or is still to be achieved as regards the three criteria mentioned above. Therefore, if we want to estimate text-linguistic approaches (or concepts), works (methods), or knowledge (results) we should take the view allowing for the general valuation of the linguistic discipline or one of its sub-disciplines. This should be done with respect to the contributions gathered in this volume as well.

I should like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor H. Schultink, whose criticisms and careful reading helped me to improve considerably upon the clarity of exposition while I wrote this study, and whose seemingly innocent requests to elaborate confronted me time and again with the need of revising or abandoning ideas I thought stood on firm ground. His support, and Dr. M. C. van den Toom's gratefully acknowl­ edged willingness to read and evaluate the manuscript enabled me to present this work as a thesis in the University of Utrecht. In more than one way, lowe a debt to Albert Kraak, Professor of Linguistics in the University of Nijmegen. His inspiring enthusiasm awakened my interest in linguistics when I was a student of his. He in­ troduced me to transformational grammar at a time when it seemed almost improper to talk about it, and the stimulating experience of writing a book on Dutch syntax together with him taught me invaluable lessons. I should also like to thank my friend and colleague Henk Verkuyl, to­ gether with whom I prepared an article on the subject of measuring duration in Dutch. Without our stimulating discussions on the subject, the fourth chapter of this study could never have been written in the present form. I am also indebted to him for criticisms and helpful suggestions. At an early stage I profited greatly from discussions with Pieter A. M.

The task of presenting for explicit view the store of appraisive terms our language affords has been undertaken in the conviction that it will be of interest not only to ethics and other philosophical studies but also to various areas of social science and linguistics. I have principally sought to do justice to the complexities of this vocabulary, the uses to which it is put, and the capacities its use reflects. I have given little thought to whether the inquiry was philosophical and whether it was being conducted in a philosophical manner. Foremost in my thoughts were the tasks that appeared to need doing, among them these: explicit attention was to be given to the vocabulary by means of which we say we commend,judge, appraise, or evaluate subjects and subject matters in our experience; it was to be segregated from other language at least for the purpose of study; the types of appraisive resources that are at hand in a language such as English were to be classified in some convincing and not too artificial manner; and an empirical standpoint was to be developed for a better view of appraisal, evaluation, and judging within the framework of other ways we have of responding to our surround­ ings such as appetition and emotion on one side and factual registering and theorizing about states of affairs on the other. Such an inquiry has never been undertaken in quite this manner before.

I. RATNAKIRTI. HIS PHILOSOPHICAL CONGENERS AND ADVERSARIES Ratnakirti flourished early in the 11th century A. D. at the University of Vi- kramasila, a member of the Yogacara-Vijnanavada school oflate Buddhist philosophy. Thakur characterizes Ratnakirti's writing as "more concise and logical though not so poetical" 1 as that of his guru, Jfianasrimitra, two of 2 whose dicta are focal points of the present work. From a translogical or absolute point of view , Ratnakirti endorses a form of 3 solipsistic idealism. The Sarhtdndntaradu$alJa , his proof of solipsism written from the standpoint ofthe highest truth (paramdrtha), concludes that an exter- nal nonmental continuum is impossible. In ultimate reality the cognizing sub- ject, its act of awareness, and the cognized object coalesce - all are fabrications superposed on what is really an indivisible evanescent now (svalak$alJa). 4 As Ratnakirti's predecessors have put it: There is neither an 'I' nor a 'he' nor a 'you' nor even an 'it'; neither the thing, nor the not-thing; neither a law nor a system; neither the terms nor the relations. But there are only the cognitive events of colourless sensations which have forms but no names.They are caught for a moment in a stream and then rush to naught. Even the stream is a fiction. That sensum of the moment, the purest particular, that advaya, the indivisible unit of cognition, that is the sole reality, the rest are all fictions, stirred up by time-honoured 5 convention of language which is itself a grand fiction.

The present book collects seven studies on the grammatical aspects of number names. No attempt has been made to unify the notation, but all authors work from a generative viewpoint. Each contribution chosen gives more than just a description of the number name system in a certain language. Thus, the linguist interested in simplicity, types of transformations, functional rules, tagmemic rules, comparisons be­ tween languages, or language universals may profit from this collection. H. BRANDT CORSTIUS v T ABLE OF CONTENTS A. V AN KA TWIJ K / A Functional Grammar of Dutch Number Names 1 BARRON BRAINERD / On the Syntax of Certain Classes of Numerical Expressions 9 BARRON BRAINERD / A Transformational-Generative Grammar for Rumanian Numerical Expressions 41 BARRON BRAINERD and FRED C. C. PENG / A Syntactic Comparison of Chinese and Japanese Numerical Expressions 53 RANI SIROMONEY / Grammars of Number Names of Certain Dravidian Languages 82 WILLIAM R. MERRIFIELD / Number Names in Four Languages of Mexico 91 HUGO BRANDT CORSTIUS / Automatic Translation between Number Names 103 VII A. VAN KATWIJK A FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF DUTCH NUMBER NAMES At the present time there are quite a number of generative grammars for numerical expressions. Brainerd (1967) even mentions the possibility of giving "a complete description of systems of numerical expressions in any language", where the transformation theory of number names provides a framework for discussions of a number of universals. He also refers to the advantages of completeness of descriptions being possible in these grammars.

The aim of this monograph is to expound the conceptions of temporalized modality at issue in various Arabic logical texts. I claim to have been able to make good logical sense of doctrines of which even the later Arab logicians themselves came to despair. In the process, a substantially new area of the history of logic has come into a clear view. I am indebted to Anne Cross (Mrs. Michael) Pelon and especially Mr. Bas van Fraassen for assistance in the research. Miss Dorothy Henle merits my thanks for preparing the difficult typescript for the printer and helping to see the book through the press. Also, I am grateful to the Editors of Foun­ dations of Language for inviting inclusion of the monograph in the Supple­ mentary Series of the journal. The present work is part of a series of studies of Arabic contributions to logic supported by research grants from the National Science Foundation. It affords me much pleasure to record my sincere thanks for this assistance.