Language, discourse and politics

After discussing the meaning of the word politics, this paper shows that there are four possible approaches to the issue of the relationships between language, discourse and politics: a) the intrinsic political nature of language; b) the relations of power between discourses and their political dimension; c) the relations of power between languages and the political dimension of their usage and; d) linguistic policies. This paper addresses only the first two of these items. Languages have an intrinsically political nature because they subject their speakers to their order. The acts of silencing operationalized in discourse manifest a relation of power. The spread of discourses in the social space is also subject to the order of power. The use of language may be the space of pertinence, but is also that of exclusion, separation and even the elimination of the other. Therefore, language is not a neutral communication tool, but it is permeated by politics, by power. Because of the dislocations that it produces, literature is a form of swindling language, unveiling the powers that are imprinted on it.

The Qu-Prolog unification algorithm: Formalisation and correctness

Qu-Prolog is an extension of Prolog which performs meta-level computations over object languages, such as predicate calculi and lambda-calculi, which have object-level variables, and quantifier or binding symbols creating local scopes for those variables. As in Prolog, the instantiable (meta-level) variables of Qu-Prolog range over object-level terms, and in addition other Qu-Prolog syntax denotes the various components of the object-level syntax, including object-level variables. Further, the meta-level operation of substitution into object-level terms is directly represented by appropriate Qu-Prolog syntax. Again as in Prolog, the driving mechanism in Qu-Prolog computation is a form of unification, but this is substantially more complex than for Prolog because of Qu-Prolog's greater generality, and especially because substitution operations are evaluated during unification. In this paper, the Qu-Prolog unification algorithm is specified, formalised and proved correct. Further, the analysis of the algorithm is carried out in a frame-work which straightforwardly allows the 'completeness' of the algorithm to be proved: though fully explicit answers to unification problems are not always provided, no information is lost in the unification process.

Refining specifications to logic programs

The refinement calculus provides a framework for the stepwise development of imperative programs from specifications. In this paper we study a refinement calculus for deriving logic programs. Dealing with logic programs rather than imperative programs has the dual advantages that, due to the expressive power of logic programs, the final program is closer to the original specification, and each refinement step can achieve more. Together these reduce the overall number of derivation steps. We present a logic programming language extended with specification constructs (including general predicates, assertions, and types and invariants) to form a wide-spectrum language. General predicates allow non-executable properties to be included in specifications. Assertions, types and invariants make assumptions about the intended inputs of a procedure explicit, and can be used during refinement to optimize the constructed logic program. We provide a semantics for the extended logic programming language and derive a set of refinement laws. Finally we apply these to an example derivation.

Speech disorder in preschool children exposed to Cantonese and English

Speech disorder in monolingual Cantonese- or English-speaking children has been well described in the literature. There appear to be no reports, however, that describe speech-disordered children who have been exposed to both languages. Here we report on the error patterns of two preschool speech-disordered children who were learning two languages. Both children's first language was Cantonese, but they were also exposed to English through the media and child care. Their disorders were of unknown aetiology. The following questions were asked of the data: (a) Do bilingual children, suspected of having speech problems, make errors in Cantonese and English that reflect delay or disorder when compared with normative data on monolingual speech development in each language? (b) How does the children's speech differ from other bilingual children from the same language learning background? (c) Are the children's speech difficulties apparent in both languages? (d) Is the pattern of errors the same in both languages or do language-specific processes operate? The results bear on theories of acquisition, disorder and bilingualism; they also have clinical implications for speech-language pathologists whose caseloads include bilingual preschool children.