A trajectory-based strict semantics for program slicing

We define a program semantics that is preserved by dependence-based slicing algorithms. It is a natural extension, to non-terminating programs, of the semantics introduced by Weiser (which only considered terminating ones) and, as such, is an accurate characterisation of the semantic relationship between a program and the slice produced by these algorithms. Unlike other approaches, apart from Weiser’s original one, it is based on strict standard semantics which models the ‘normal’ execution of programs on a von Neumann machine and, thus, has the advantage of being intuitive. This is essential since one of the main applications of slicing is program comprehension. Although our semantics handles non-termination, it is defined wholly in terms of finite trajectories, without having to resort to complex, counter-intuitive, non-standard models of computation. As well as being simpler, unlike other approaches to this problem, our semantics is substitutive. Substitutivity is an important property becauseit greatly enhances the ability to reason about correctness of meaning-preserving program transformations such as slicing

Grammaticalization and automation

Every human activity including language is part of a teleonomic hierarchy, where subordinate processes serve superordinate goals. The goals are pursued consciously; the processes run automatically. A teleonomic hierarchy is, at the same time, a scale between the poles of control and automation. Automation is the downgrading of an action to the level of an uncontrolled process. Regain of control over a process that has been automatized is hard or impossible. Language activity, too, is controlled or automatic in different aspects and to different degrees. The speaker’s freedom is realized at two logical levels: At the lower level, his use of grammatical operations and formatives is not free, but determined by rules of the linguistic system. At the higher level, he can choose the components of his activity which he wants to control, leaving the rest to automatisms of the system. Grammaticalization subjects operations and items to constraints of the system. This creates a uniform relation between conditioning factor and construction formed. This relation, together with frequency of use, is responsible for the automation of grammar. Since processes once automated are withdrawn from control, degrammaticalization is all but impossible

Paradigms regained

The volume discusses the breadth of applications for an extended notion of paradigm. Paradigms in this sense are not only tools of morphological description but constitute the inherent structure of grammar. Grammatical paradigms are structural sets forming holistic, semiotic structures with an informational value of their own. We argue that as such, paradigms are a part of speaker knowledge and provide necessary structuring for grammaticalization processes. The papers discuss theoretical as well as conceptual questions and explore different domains of grammatical phenomena, ranging from grammaticalization, morphology, and cognitive semantics to modality, aiming to illustrate what the concept of grammatical paradigms can and cannot (yet) explain

Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm

The volume discusses the breadth of applications for an extended notion of paradigm. Paradigms in this sense are not only tools of morphological description but constitute the inherent structure of grammar. Grammatical paradigms are structural sets forming holistic, semiotic structures with an informational value of their own. We argue that as such, paradigms are a part of speaker knowledge and provide necessary structuring for grammaticalization processes. The papers discuss theoretical as well as conceptual questions and explore different domains of grammatical phenomena, ranging from grammaticalization, morphology, and cognitive semantics to modality, aiming to illustrate what the concept of grammatical paradigms can and cannot (yet) explain

Paradigms regained

The volume discusses the breadth of applications for an extended notion of paradigm. Paradigms in this sense are not only tools of morphological description but constitute the inherent structure of grammar. Grammatical paradigms are structural sets forming holistic, semiotic structures with an informational value of their own. We argue that as such, paradigms are a part of speaker knowledge and provide necessary structuring for grammaticalization processes. The papers discuss theoretical as well as conceptual questions and explore different domains of grammatical phenomena, ranging from grammaticalization, morphology, and cognitive semantics to modality, aiming to illustrate what the concept of grammatical paradigms can and cannot (yet) explain