{"id":9783,"date":"2020-09-03T10:00:45","date_gmt":"2020-09-03T10:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2020-12-16T11:51:37","modified_gmt":"2020-12-16T11:51:37","slug":"9783-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-3-20\/seminal-articles\/9783-2","title":{"rendered":"Gossip and Other Life Sentences: A Simple Grammar"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style>\n p {\n    text-indent: 2em;\n\tfont-size:11.0pt;\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;\n    margin: 0;}\n.code\n\t{font-size:11.0pt; font-family:\"Arial Black\",sans-serif;}\n.logo\n\t{margin: 1em 0 0 5em;\n\tfont-size:11.0pt;\n\tfont-family:\"Courier New\";\n    }\n    .logo + .logo {\n        margin: 0 0 0 6em;\n    }\n    .wrapper .logo + :not(.logo) {\n        margin-top: 1em;\n    }\n    .wrapper {\n        max-width: 1000px;\n        margin: auto;\n    }\n ol\n\t{margin-bottom:0in;}\nul\n\t{margin-bottom:0in;}\n\n    div {\n        margin: 1em 0;\n    }\n    img {\n        display: block;\n        margin: 1em 0 1em 4em;\n    }\np {\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;\n    margin: 0;\n}\nfigure {\n\ttext-align:center;\n\tfont-size:11.0pt;\n    margin: 2em 0;\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;\n\tfont-style:italic;}\n.etude {\n\tmargin-bottom:3.0pt;\n\tfont-size:11.0pt;\n\tfont-family:\"Calibri\",sans-serif;}\n.example {\n\tmargin-left:.25in;\n\tfont-size:11.0pt;\n\tfont-family:\"courier\",monospace;\n\ttext-transform:uppercase;\n}\n    .tabex {\n        text-indent: 0.5em;\n    }\n    div {\n        margin: 1em 0;\n    }\n<\/style>\n<p><strong><em>Read the Goldenberg chapter and related articles:<\/em><\/strong><br><a href=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-3-20\/seminal-articles\/integrating-language-arts-and-computational-thinking-a-reflection-on-the-importance-of-gossip\">Integrating Language Arts and Computational Thinking: A Reflection on the Importance of Gossip<\/a><br><a href=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-3-20\/seminal-articles\/reflections-on-exploring-language-with-logo\">Reflections on \u201cExploring Language With Logo\u201d<\/a><br><a href=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-3-20\/seminal-articles\/9809-2\">Exploring Language: The Journey from Logo to Snap!<\/a><\/p>\n\n    <figure>\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/kidswhispering.jpg\" alt=\"one kid whispering in another kid's ear\">\n    <\/figure>\n<div>\n\n<p>Buzz, buzz! <\/p>\n\n<p>Shakespeare <\/p>\n\n<p><i>Hamlet<\/i>, Act Il, Scene ii <\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n<p>What is the simplest structure of gossip?<\/p>\n\n<p>At the very least, there must be\na subject about which one gossips: it\u2019s no fun gossiping if you aren\u2019t gossiping\nabout someone. There must also be an allegation (a predicate) that purports to be\ntrue about the subject: no fun just whispering names unless one can tie some juicy\ntidbit to those names. This is already the beginning of a \u201cmodel\u201d of gossip, a specification of its nature. <\/p>\n\n\n<h2>Technical Terms\u2014Common Meanings <\/h2>\n\n<p>When the words <i>subject<\/i> and <i>predicate<\/i> are used close together, they seem so tied to grammar that one tends to forget that they have non-technical meanings as well. A subject is a topic; a predicate is what one has predicated, asserted, about the topic. <\/p>\n\n<p>Sometimes the subject of gossip is\nan actor (like <i>Dale<\/i>) and the predicate an action (like <i>cheats<\/i>). By\nrestricting ourselves to gossip of this type, we are further refining the model,\nagreeing that we won\u2019t deal with gossip like <i>Dale is a creep<\/i> (where there\nis no real action and therefore no actor). Here are some examples of gossip that\nfollow our model. All the \u201cactors\u201d are people (a still further refinement). <\/p>\n\n<div>\n<p>Dale cheats. <\/p>\n\n<p>Dana loves to walk. (But is <i>loves\nto walk<\/i> really an action?) <\/p>\n\n<p>Chris talks a mile a minute. <\/p>\n\n<p>Sandy yells. <\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n<p>It\u2019s convenient to have an abbreviated\nway of describing the model. Because we are building two-part sentences, it makes\nsense to have two-part descriptions. <\/p>\n\n<p>In my first attempt at modeling gossip,\nI referred to its two components only as SUBJECT and PREDICATE, but that \u201ccode\u201d\ndoesn\u2019t capture the essence of gossip. After all, the sentence <i>Trees are made\nof wood<\/i> also has a subject and a predicate. When I decided to consider only\ncertain kinds of subject and predicate, that clarified the model somewhat. That\nsecond model might be best expressed as ACTOR ACTION. A third refinement eliminated\nsentences like <i>Dogs bark<\/i> and might be encoded as PERSON ACTION. The words\nwe choose as descriptors for the model depend on our purpose and our taste. Most\nof the time, we want to remind ourselves or clarify to others what our model means.\nWe might choose any of those three descriptions or, for that matter, nonwords as well. For this WHO DOESWHAT seems to be particularly clear. <\/p>\n<div>\n    <p class=\"etude\"><b>Etude 1.1<\/b> To write a program that can produce these sentences, create\nthe following procedures. In most Logos, it is best to do this by first entering\nthe editor.<\/p>\n\n<div>\n<p class=\"example\">TO GOSSIP <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example tabex\">OUTPUT (SENTENCE\nWHO DOESWHAT)<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">END<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">TO WHO <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example tabex\">OUTPUT PICK [SANDY DALE DANA CHRIS]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">END<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">TO DOESWHAT <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example tabex\">OUTPUT PICK [CHEATS. [LOVES TO TALK.] [TALKS A MILE A MINUTE.] YELLS.]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">END<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">If you used the editor, now get out of the editor, defining the procedures. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n<p>Like human languages, computer languages, including Logo, have\nexisting vocabularies. Some computer languages prevent changes to these meanings;\nothers (like human languages) allow changes, but at the risk of confusion or ambiguity.\nSome Logo implementations, for example, already have WHO defined with a very different\nmeaning and purpose from what we would like for modeling gossip.<\/p>\n\n<p>If your language already has a vocabulary item\u2014a\nprocedure\u2014with a name you would have liked to use, simply pick a different name.\nFor example, you might choose PERSON instead of WHO and use it whenever WHO is used\nin this text. Note that this requires a change not only in a procedure\u2019s title (TO\nPERSON instead of TO WHO) but also in the instruction in GOSSIP.<\/p>\n<div>\n    <p class=\"etude\"><b>Etude 1.2<\/b> Test the procedures you have written by typing\n        PRINT GOSSIP a few times. It may do something like this: <\/p><\/div>\n<div>\n<p class=\"example\">?PRINT GOSSIP <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">CHRIS LOVES TO WALK. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?PRINT GOSSIP <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DANA CHEATS. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?PRINT GOSSIP <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DANA TALKS A MILE A MINUTE. <\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">How many different sentences can GOSSIP, defined this way,\nproduce? How many times do you have to run it before it produces all the possible\ncombinations? You may find it easier to use Logo\u2019s REPEAT command than to type PRINT\nGOSSIP repeatedly. <\/p>\n    \n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?REPEAT 15 [PRINT GOSSIP]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">.<\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Etude\n1.3<\/b> You have examined the output from GOSSIP, but you haven\u2019t looked into its\ncomponent parts. Try typing<\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">REPEAT 15 [PRINT WHO]<\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">or <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">REPEAT 15 [PRINT DOESWHAT] <\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Each procedure has a \u201clife\u201d of its own. <\/p>\n\n<h2>How GOSSIP Works<\/h2>\n\n<p>It is useful to think of the three\nprocedures you have just created as language-generating machines, <i>sources<\/i>\nof language. I will represent sources like these as boxes, with <i>spouts<\/i> out\nof which some language product emerges. (See Figure 1.1.)<\/p>\n\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-1.png\">\n\n<figcaption>Figure 1.1: Each of these source procedures\nis represented <br>\n    with a spout through which it outputs some piece of language.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>These diagrams do not show what is\ninside the machines. We will x-ray the machines a bit later. For now, all that is\nimportant is the external anatomy. <\/p>\n\n<p>Other machines such as PRINT, are\nnot sources of information: rather, they are consumers of information and cannot\noperate without getting some input. (PRINT cannot work without being told what to\nprint.) They receive the information, do something with it (such as put it on the\nscreen), and then stop without producing any new objects (for example, words, sentences,\nor numbers) for other machines to use. We can think of machines like these as <i>destinations<\/i>.\nTheir diagrams show this graphically: they do not have spouts at the bottom because\nthey do not output, but they do need one or more hoppers at the top through which\nthey receive their input. PRINT has one hopper in which the object to be printed\nis placed (See figure 1.2.) <\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-2.png\">\n<figcaption>Figure 1.2: PRINT has a hopper for input but no spout<br>\nfor output. Thus it is an object\u2019s final\n    destination.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>Everything that WHO, DOESWHAT, and\nGOSSIP need in order to operate properly is built directly into them, so they need\nno hoppers for inputs. <\/p>\n\n<p>The Logo statement PRINT GOSSIP uses\ntwo machines and is diagrammed as shown in figure 1.3. <\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-3.png\">\n<figcaption>Figure 1.3: Output from the source flows into the destination\u2019s hopper. <br>\nWithout the destination, Logo wouldn\u2019t know what to do with <br>\n    the object produced by the source.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>By showing which machines are sources and which are destinations, the diagrams also make clear how the machines fit together.<\/p>\n\n<p>Now let\u2019s look inside GOSSIP to see\nhow it is constructed and how it works. A diagram of an x-ray of GOSSIP shows WHO\nand DOESWHAT machines along with a SENTENCE machine and a wavy arrow. (See figure\n1.4.) <\/p>\n\n<p>As you can see, SENTENCE is a third\nkind of a machine. Like PRINT, it is a consumer of information. But it has an output:\nit is not a final destination. It performs a combining operation, gluing together\nthe objects dropped into hoppers, and outputting the assembled product through its\nspout.<\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-4.png\">\n    <figcaption>Figure 1.4: An x-ray of the GOSSIP machine.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>In mathematics, SENTENCE\nwould be called a function because for any given input \u2014 in this case, <i>pair<\/i>\nof inputs \u2014 its output is unique. In computer science and programming, the word\n<i>function<\/i> tends to be less restricted so, to avoid confusion, we will choose\na different term and just call this kind of machine a processor. Figure 1.5 is a\ndiagram of SENTENCE all by itself. <\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-5.png\">\n    <figcaption>Figure 1.5 A diagram of SENTENCE.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>To express in Logo that we want to\ncreate a SENTENCE of the components generated by WHO and DOESWHAT, we write (SENTENCE\nWHO DOESWHAT) and we diagram it as shown in Figure 1.6.<\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-6.png\">\n<figcaption>Figure 1.6: Combining the outputs of\n    two sources into a single sentence.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>The Logo word OUTPUT is not quite\nthe same as the others. It states that the machine that contains it has a spout,\nand it indicates what is to come out of that spout. In the x-ray of GOSSIP above,\nOUTPUT is represented by the wavy arrow. <\/p>\n\n<p>To summarize, GOSSIP produces and\nOUTPUTs a SENTENCE composed of an actor (WHO) and an action (DOESWHAT). (SENTENCE\nis one of many Logo operations that combine their inputs.) <\/p>\n\n<p>And how do the WHO and DOESWHAT that\nyou created in Etude 1.1 work? Each contains the processor PICK that picks an object\nrandomly from the list given as its input. WHO and DOESWHAT have their lists built\ninto them. WHO\u2019s list is [DALE DANA CHRIS SANDY]. (Your own WHO procedure may of\ncourse contain a list of different names.) <\/p>\n\n<p>The square brackets indicate two\nthings. First, they indicate that the words inside them are to be considered together\nas a single list, one input to PICK. More subtly, the brackets also state that their\ncontents are not to be treated as machines that will generate an input for PICK\nbut are themselves the very objects that PICK may pick among. (Recall that in GOSSIP,\nSENTENCE\u2019s inputs were not the words WHO and DOESWHAT but rather the objects that\nthose machines produced.) <\/p>\n\n<p>DOESWHAT\u2019s list contains four items:\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p class=\"example\">CHEATS.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">[LOVES TO WALK.] <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">[TALKS A MILE A MINUTE]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">YELLS.<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n<p>(Again, you may have chosen different\nmembers for this list\u2014perhaps more than four of them.) Like WHO\u2019s list, DOESWHAT\u2019s\nlist is also enclosed in square brackets, indicating that together these four items\nform a single list of actions from which to PICK. Two of the items in this list\nare themselves bracketed because each contains more than one word. Again, the brackets\ntell Logo that what they enclose is to be considered a single object, a phrase,\nnot several unrelated words. <\/p>\n\n<p>Figure 1.7 shows an x-ray of DOESWHAT. <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-7.png\">\n<figcaption>Figure 1 7: An x-ray of DOESWHAT shows\nthat it contains only <br>\none machine. The other words in the procedure definition are <br>\n    just text that PICK manipulates for DOESWHAT.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>Of course, gossip is often more complex\nthan the kind produced in this model. For one thing, there can be more parts to\na sentence of gossip: for example, an object of the subject\u2019s attention (or inattention).\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p class=\"example\">Dale cheats DANA. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">Dana loves to walk with SANDY. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">Chris talks a mile a minute to DANA.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">Sandy yells at CHRIS. <\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n<p>We might at first be inclined to code\nthis new model as WHO DOESWHAT TOWHOM, but in our example, as in much gossip, the\npeople giving the attention (the subjects) and the people receiving the attention\n(the objects) belong to the same clique. So, in describing this model of gossip,\nit may make sense to use the same code word for the subject and object: <\/p>\n<div>\n<p class=\"example\">WHO DOESWHAT WHO <\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<p>A closer look, however, shows that the\nwords expressing the actions represented by DOESWHAT in our model are not exactly\nthe same as they were before. To accommodate the object, wordings like <\/p>\n<div>\n\n<p>loves to walk <\/p>\n\n<p>talks a mile a minute <\/p>\n\n<p>yells<\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n<div>\n<p>have to be changed to<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<div>\n<p>loves to walk <i>with<\/i> <\/p>\n\n<p>talks a mile a minute <i>to<\/i> <\/p>\n\n<p>yells <i>at<\/i><\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Exploration 1.1<\/b> Just as the expression (SENTENCE\nWHO DOESWHAT) represents the combined results of WHO and DOESWHAT, the expression\n(SENTENCE WHO DOESWHAT WHO) represents a three-constituent sentence. Edit and change\nyour procedures so that you have a procedure that can create sentences like the\nfollowing: <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Sandy loves to walk with Chris<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Dale cheats Chris<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Chris yells at Dale<\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p>(Appendix C\ncontains strategies including full, or full enough, listings of the programming\nneeded in <i>Explorations<\/i>. Sometimes more than one approach is suggested,\nwith some commentary about the relative merits of each one.) <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<h2>Programming the\nEnglish Language with the Programming Language Logo <\/h2>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p>A good model is worth a thousand\nfacts. <\/p>\n\n<p>M. Malitza (Marx and T\u00f8th, 1984, p. 3) <\/p>\n\n<p>Practically every discipline has\ninvented its own special notational systems. There is certainly nothing new to linguists\nabout creating diagrams and codes to express abstract relationships in the study\nof language. (See figure 1.8.) <\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" style=\"display: block;margin:auto;\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-8a.png\">\n<img decoding=\"async\" style=\"display: block;margin:auto;\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-8b.png\">\n<figcaption>Figure 1.8: Two examples of linguistic and\ndiagrams. <br>\n(From Rach, 1964 and from <span class=\"SpellE\">Akmajian<\/span>, Demers and Hamish,\n    1979.)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>What is relatively new is the easy\naccessibility of computers to interpret these symbols and allow dynamic experiments\nwith grammars. <\/p>\n\n<p>For computers to be most useful to\nthe student of language, however, they must not distract from the real goals of\nstudying language. They must enable the expression of linguistic structures and\nprocesses in a fairly natural way. Computers that cannot accept symbolic systems\nthat are well suited to such linguistics processing are likely to be just such a\ndistraction. <\/p>\n\n<p>Logo was designed with the needs\nof language manipulation in mind, and Logo expressions like (SENTENCE WHO DOESWHAT\nWHO) are close reflections of the desired linguistic structure. <\/p>\n\n<h2>Parentheses and\nBrackets <\/h2>\n\n<p>The parentheses tell SENTENCE how\nmany input hoppers it has, how many things it must put together. (See figure 1.9.)\nIn the definition of GOSSIP those inputs are represented by WHO and DOESWHAT. I\nsay \u201crepresented by\u201d because, as mentioned earlier, it is not the words <i>who<\/i>\nand <i>doeswhat<\/i> that are being combined, but the words\nor phrases that procedures WHO and DOESWHAT produce. <\/p>\n\n<p>Before SENTENCE can combine its inputs, WHO and DOESWHAT must\nbe executed (in fact, in our current GOSSIP model, WHO must be executed twice) to\nsee what those inputs are. <\/p>\n\n<figure>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/fig1-9.png \">\n<figcaption>Figure 1.9: Some processors can be told\nhow many input hoppers to have. <br>\nNormally, SENTENCE has only two, but when more inputs are parenthesized <br>\n    with it, it \u201cgrows\u201d extra hoppers to accommodate the inputs.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n<p>Note that parentheses and not brackets\nare used in the GOSSIP procedure. Recall that beyond showing an intended grouping,\nbrackets also tell Logo that what they contain are inert objects \u2014 things, information,\ndata \u2014 and not running machines. WHO and DOESWHAT are not inert. <\/p>\n\n<p>SENTENCE is one of only a few Logo\nmachines that can handle a variable number of input hoppers: two in the case (SENTENCE\nWHO DOESWHAT) and three in the case (SENTENCE WHO DOESWHAT WHO). That\u2019s why it needs\nthe parentheses. You don\u2019t have to say (PRINT GOSSIP) to show that PRINT requires\none input, nor (WHO) to show that WHO uses no inputs at all. Note that the machine\nname goes inside the parentheses, along with the inputs. This differs from the <i>f(x,y) <\/i>function notation in algebra. <\/p>\n\n<h2>What Is a Word?\n    <\/h2>\n\n<p>How accurate is it to think of the\nthree structural elements of these sentences as subject, verb, and object? Of course,\nfrom the point of view of conventional grammars, the designation \u201cverb\u201d certainly\ndoes not include things as complex as <i>loves to walk with<\/i>. <\/p>\n\n<p>In sentences like <i>Chris yells\nat Dale<\/i> or <i>Sandy<\/i> <i>looks for Dana<\/i> or <i>Dale swims behind Sandy<\/i>,\nschoolbook grammars have traditionally grouped the last two words as a prepositional\nphrase rather than grouping the middle two words as some kind of complex verb form.\nBut these three cases somehow feel different to many people. <\/p>\n\n<p>With <i>yells at<\/i>, one can argue\neither way. The traditional view is that the <i>at<\/i> introduces a prepositional\nphrase answering where Chris\u2019s action is directed, and <i>yells<\/i>, by itself,\nis that action. However, because one can easily believe that <i>yells at<\/i> has\na one-word synonym in many languages \u2014 for example, <i>scolds<\/i> in English \u2014 one\ncould plausibly argue that its two-word status in this sentence is more an artifact\nof word choice than any indication about the underlying grammatical structure of\nthe sentence. In <i>Sandy looks for Dana<\/i>, the two different interpretations\nare stark: The most natural interpretation of the sentence is <i>Sandy seeks Dana<\/i>,\nnot <i>In order to help Dana out, Sandy is taking on the task of doing all the looking<\/i>.\nWe naturally hear <i>looks for<\/i> as \u201cone verb,\u201d not a verb further qualified by\na prepositional phrase.<\/p>\n\n    <h2>Grammar as a Model of Mind <\/h2>\n\n<p>The argument might go as follows:\nto have grammatical names and categories just for the sake of having them seems\npretty uninteresting, <\/p>\n\n<p>Grammatical categories matter only\nwhen we believe that they are not purely arbitrary, that they really help us describe,\nfor example, something about how brains process language. It seems unlikely that\nthe rules that live in our brains distinguish between <i>Chris yells at Dale<\/i>\nand <i>Chris scolds Dale<\/i>. A model of mind that treats these two very differently\nseems unnecessarily complex. <\/p>\n\n<p>Like <i>yells at<\/i>, <i>looks for<\/i>\ncan feel like a single unit, though some traditional grammars would argue otherwise.\nIt is not difficult even in English to find one-word synonyms for <i>looks for<\/i>\nand <i>yells at<\/i>, and it is easy to believe that in some languages the most common\nway of expressing these ideas uses only one word. However, <i>swims behind<\/i> seems\ntoo specific to have its own special word in any language except perhaps a Dolphin\u2019s\nlanguage. <i>Follows<\/i> specifies the relationship between the subject and object\nbut doesn\u2019t say whether they are swimming, driving, or walking. Swims, by itself,\nspecifies the kind of locomotion but not a relationship with another swimmer. The\nsame distinction can be made between <i>house boat<\/i> and <i>light switch<\/i>,\nwhich can feel like single objects (even though there are other kinds of boats and\nswitches), and <i>green sock<\/i>, which generates no such feeling. <\/p>\n\n<p>The difference is important. For\none thing, which is more certain to you: that the correct way of typing\n<i>house boat<\/i> is not <i>house-boat<\/i> or that the correct way of\ntyping <i>green sock<\/i> is not <i>green-sock<\/i>? What about the correct typing\nof <i>greenhouse<\/i>? <\/p>\n\n<p>The choices of list items one makes\nin procedures such as DOESWHAT (and in the various structural elements used in more\ncomplex sentence generators) can become a rich source of material for analyzing\nwhat are meaningful categories in a model of mind.<\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>Another simple form of\ngossip we discussed consisted of sentences like these: <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>Dale stinks. <\/p>\n\n<p>Dana is a creep. <\/p>\n\n<p>Sandy is disgusting. <\/p>\n\n<p>Chris is rotten to the core. <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>or their opposites <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>Sandy is an angel. <\/p>\n\n<p>Chris is beautiful. <\/p>\n\n<p>or even a structure composed\nof these simpler structures <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>Chris is beautiful but Chris is rotten\nto the core.<\/p>\n\n<p>Sandy is an angel but Dana is a creep.\n<\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>The model of this last\npiece of gossip might be described this way: <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>PRAISE [BUT] INSULT <\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p>I put the BUT in brackets\nto show that it is a fixed piece of text, static, unlike the other two constituents,\nwhich <i>stand for<\/i> but <i>are not<\/i> the desired text, just as WHO and DOESWHAT\n<i>stood for<\/i> but <i>were not<\/i> the actual text. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Exploration 1.2<\/b>\nProduce a program that has this behavior: <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?PRINT INSULT <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DALE STINKS <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?REPEAT 5 [PRINT INSULT]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">CHRIS STINKS<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DANA STINKS <\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<p class=\"etude\">\u2026 and so on.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Look for the simplest\nway get <i>only<\/i> the one word \u201cstinks\u201d to follow the subject. Don\u2019t change your\nWHO procedure, but let the new INSULT procedure make use of it. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Exploration 1.3<\/b>\nProduce a more varied and colorful insult program.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Exploration 1.4<\/b>\nproduce a PRAISE program that has this behavior: <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?REPEAT 20 [PRINT PRAISE] <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DALE IS AN ANGEL <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">CHRIS IS BEAUTIFUL <\/p>\n\n    <\/div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\">Again, use the same\nWHO part that you used in GOSSIP and INSULT. <\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"etude\"><b>Exploration 1.5<\/b>\nUse your PRAISE and INSULT procedures to write a program that has this behavior:<\/p>\n\n<div>\n\n<p class=\"example\">?REPEAT 3 [PRINT COMPARE]<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DALE IS AN ANGEL BUT CHRIS MUGS KITTENS<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">DANA WALKS ON WATER BUT DANA IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"example\">CHRIS MAKES MY HEART THROB BUT DALE MAKES MY HEAD THROB<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<p class=\"etude\">Note that each sentence\nconsists of only three parts, a praise, a \u201cbut\u201d, and an insult. Create the one COMPARE\nprocedure without altering any procedures you created earlier and without creating\nany other new procedures.<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div><p id=\"pvc_stats_9783\" class=\"pvc_stats all  \" data-element-id=\"9783\" style=\"\"><i class=\"pvc-stats-icon small\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><svg aria-hidden=\"true\" focusable=\"false\" data-prefix=\"far\" data-icon=\"chart-bar\" role=\"img\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 512 512\" class=\"svg-inline--fa fa-chart-bar fa-w-16 fa-2x\"><path fill=\"currentColor\" d=\"M396.8 352h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V108.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v230.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zm-192 0h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V140.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v198.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zm96 0h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V204.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v134.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zM496 400H48V80c0-8.84-7.16-16-16-16H16C7.16 64 0 71.16 0 80v336c0 17.67 14.33 32 32 32h464c8.84 0 16-7.16 16-16v-16c0-8.84-7.16-16-16-16zm-387.2-48h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8v-70.4c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v70.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8z\" class=\"\"><\/path><\/svg><\/i> <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"16\" height=\"16\" alt=\"Loading\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/plugins\/page-views-count\/ajax-loader-2x.gif\" border=0 \/><\/p><div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Read the Goldenberg chapter and related articles:Integrating Language Arts and Computational Thinking: A Reflection on the Importance of GossipReflections on \u201cExploring Language With Logo\u201dExploring Language: The Journey from Logo to Snap! Buzz, buzz! Shakespeare Hamlet, Act Il, Scene ii What is the simplest structure of gossip? At the very least, there must be a subject [&hellip;]<\/p>\n<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n<p id=\"pvc_stats_9783\" class=\"pvc_stats all  \" data-element-id=\"9783\" style=\"\"><i class=\"pvc-stats-icon small\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><svg aria-hidden=\"true\" focusable=\"false\" data-prefix=\"far\" data-icon=\"chart-bar\" role=\"img\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 512 512\" class=\"svg-inline--fa fa-chart-bar fa-w-16 fa-2x\"><path fill=\"currentColor\" d=\"M396.8 352h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V108.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v230.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zm-192 0h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V140.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v198.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zm96 0h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8V204.8c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v134.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8zM496 400H48V80c0-8.84-7.16-16-16-16H16C7.16 64 0 71.16 0 80v336c0 17.67 14.33 32 32 32h464c8.84 0 16-7.16 16-16v-16c0-8.84-7.16-16-16-16zm-387.2-48h22.4c6.4 0 12.8-6.4 12.8-12.8v-70.4c0-6.4-6.4-12.8-12.8-12.8h-22.4c-6.4 0-12.8 6.4-12.8 12.8v70.4c0 6.4 6.4 12.8 12.8 12.8z\" class=\"\"><\/path><\/svg><\/i> <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"16\" height=\"16\" alt=\"Loading\" src=\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/plugins\/page-views-count\/ajax-loader-2x.gif\" border=0 \/><\/p>\n<div class=\"pvc_clear\"><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":[10],"meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"publication":[117,114],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9783"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9783"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=9783"},{"taxonomy":"paper_format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/format?post=9783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}