Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news1.digital.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: <DDJqsL.515@actrix.gen.nz>
Sender: news@actrix.gen.nz (News Administrator)
Organization: Actrix - Internet Services
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 07:14:45 GMT
References: <DDAKqG.E9D@actrix.gen.nz> <40q490$bbg@mailnews.kub.nl> <1995Aug15.100147.1@ctdvx5.priv.ornl.gov> <40spsj$emt@mailnews.kub.nl>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
Lines: 66

In article <40spsj$emt@mailnews.kub.nl>, David Leblanc <dleblanc@kub.nl> wrote:
> In article <1995Aug15.100147.1@ctdvx5.priv.ornl.gov> s25@ctdvx5.priv.ornl.gov writes:
> #In article <40q490$bbg@mailnews.kub.nl>, dleblanc@kub.nl (David Leblanc) writes:
> # 
<snip>
> 
> Well, let's reintroduce some of the original posting.
> 
> #>In article <jguy.12.302EB65E@trl.oz.au>, JAQUES GUY <jguy@trl.oz.au> wrote:

Actually it was me, Peter Zohrab, who wrote this:> 

> #>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.
> 
> There are two points put forward here: one, he is claiming that
> generative linguists ignore problems within the theory solely for
> personal advancement  

not necessarily -- in my experience, many Linguists are conscious of the need
to create/preserve jobs for the whole Linguistic industry (I had problems
doing an anti-Generativist thesis in the UK when Thatcher was cutting
university funding, because it tended to detract from the "image" of
Generative Grammar, which was/is seen as the sexiest Linguistic theory around)

and two, that 'destroying' a theory without
> obvious replacement is how science should work.  

I dealt with this point in another posting (only a few minutes ago), but
criticising one aspect of the Competence-Performance Distinction does
certainly not involve me in a duty to immediately come forth with a
fully-fledged theory of language acquisition, for example.  Don't be
ridiculous !
> 
<snip>
> 
> #This is a perfectly human reaction, but hardly a scientific one. 
> 
> Given that the original poster called for the abandonment of
> generative linguistics as a whole without proposing and alternate
> theory, I disagree.

It's not quite as simple as that.  You've shied away from tackling my
criticism, so I conclude that you agree with it.  If you agree with it, then I
suggest you start thinking about what consequences should be drawn from this
flaw in Generative theory.

I suggest that it might well involve discarding a lot of core Generative
descriptive linguistics -- but a lot of work (especially in the non-core
areas, such as Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, and so on)
might not be affected at all -- or might only need to be reinterpreted.

Psycholinguistics is an area that I'm particularly interested in getting
reinterpreted, subsequent to the discrediting of the unitary
Competence-Performance Distinction.

> > 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".
