Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!news.emf.net!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix.gen.nz!zohrab_p
From: zohrab_p@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab)
Subject: Re: Chomksy, Significance, and Current Trends
Message-ID: <DDJozx.M5B@actrix.gen.nz>
Sender: news@actrix.gen.nz (News Administrator)
Organization: Actrix - Internet Services
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 06:35:56 GMT
References: <DD18rC.AK0@actrix.gen.nz> <jguy.12.302EB65E@trl.oz.au> <DDAKqG.E9D@actrix.gen.nz> <40q490$bbg@mailnews.kub.nl>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
Lines: 93

In article <40q490$bbg@mailnews.kub.nl>, David Leblanc <dleblanc@kub.nl> wrote:
> In article <DDAKqG.E9D@actrix.gen.nz> zohrab_p@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
> #In article <jguy.12.302EB65E@trl.oz.au>, JAQUES GUY <jguy@trl.oz.au> wrote:
> #> zohrab_p@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
> #> 
> #> >But the Generativists solve this problem by office politics, conference 
> #> >politics, and journal politics.
> #> 
> #> Non mais, je vous demande un peu! Quel est cet iconoclaste atlanteen
> #> avec un nom digne d'un alchimiste mauresque! Time for me, I think, to dig out 
> #> that paper I once wrote to collect a rejection slip, and post it here complete 
> #> with its rejection slip. As soon as I can find it, you're going to cop it. And 
> #> if I can't find it within a reasonable time, you're in for the last 
> #> installment of Metalleus.
> #> 
> #> (Posted, screamingly, thanks to Trumpet (tm)  that can't keep its voice down)
> #> 
> #Jokes aside, the point I am making is that the so-called
> #Competence-Performance Distinction is treated as a unitary distinction at the
> #theoretical level, but treated as several distinct distinctions at the
> #practical, descriptive level.
> #
> #This theoretical incoherence of Generative Grammar is ignored, on the whole,
> #because Linguists are interested primarily in jobs -- and what creates jobs is
> #adherence to paradigms -- not destroying them without obvious replacement.
> 
> One of the first things I was taught in university science classes was
> that to merely criticize a theory was next to useless unless you can
> offer a better theory to replace it. 

This is a typical Generativist red herring.  You have thousands of
Generativists *collectively* creating and constantly revising the edifice of
Generative Grammar (or whatever it calls itself these days), and if one
individual comes along and makes a criticism you are totally unable to refute,
you then demand that this individual immediately produce a theory equal to the
combined output of these thousands of Generativists, before you will deign to
take his/her criticism seriously !

If this is your interpretation of what your science lecturer taught you, then
something is seriously wrong with either your interpretation or the lecturer.

To quote from Hexter (1979, page 138): "... in an academic generation a little
over-addicted to *politesse*, it may be worth saying that violent destruction
is not necessarily of itself worthless and futile.  Even though it leaves
doubt about the right road for London, it helps if someone rips up, however
violently, a 'To London" sign on the Dover cliffs pointing south."

Better can mean provides a better
> coverage of the phenomenon being studied, is consistant with other
> well developed theories, is more intuitively interesting to
> researchers, etc. But to merely point out errors in a theory without
> providing an alternative explanation is not productive science.

An alternative explanation of what ?  I am not aware that Generative Grammar
convincingly explains anything better than any rival theory.  Generative
Grammar is top-heavy with theoretical paraphernalia, and low on explanatory
spin-off, as far as real phenomena are concerned.

> 
> From my experience working within generative theory, most researchers
> realize that the theory has many problems. Chomsky has said as much,
> comparing generative theory to pre-Gallilian (sp?) physics. But, until
> a better theory (as judged by the individual researchers) comes along,
> it's the best game in town. 
> 
> #No amount of reference to trumpets or rejection-slips will obscure that fact.
> #
> #As a matter of fact, I have published on this topic -- but I would hope a
> #serious scholar, such as yourself ?, would be able to conduct a serious 
> #discussion on the basis of its intrinsic merits -- not on the rather dubious 
> #cachet awarded by some journal editor.
> 
> Well, when you present a coherent theory that addresses the issues you
> are complaining about, and which provides a general coverage of the
> languages of the world, then I'll take you seriously. But to simply
> snipe at the theory from the sidelines, without providing alternative
> solutions, does little to nothing to progress the science.
> 
The reason I'm on the sidelines, as you put it, is because people like you use
arguments such as you have presented to *keep* people like me on the
sidelines, and away from the main action.

> David LeBlanc
> -- 
> 
> 

Peter Zohrab
-- 
ASK ME TO EMAIL MY FREE alt.mens-rights FAQ, or go:
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/orgs/zohrab.html for my Men's Rights Resource-List.
Two Rights of Man: 1. Equality with Woman in both rights and duties;;
                   2. The right to an equal say in interpreting "equality".
