RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3

If there were an extended checkpoint or success criterion that said:

A controlled language is used.

Surely that would be testable, for it could be determined whether the
author has consistently abided by rules governing vocabulary and
syntax that are intended to enhance comprehension. The guidelines need
not, and, I would argue, should not prescribe those rules relative to
any given natural language or type of content; references to
applicable standards could then be given in techniques.

Independently of the question whether there should be an extended
checkpoint specifying the use of a "controlled language", I think
there is little doubt that it could be made testable, its being
required that (1) there exist a standard or other definition of a
controlled language to which the content author has decided to
conform; and (2) the content does in fact conform to it.

In fact it might even be machine testable if there is a generative
grammar for the required syntax and a list of permissible vocabulary;
and before anybody asks, it is a fundamental insight of modern
linguistics, as I understand it, that the syntax of every natural
language can be described by a generative grammar.

Received on Saturday, 9 August 2003 02:19:22 UTC