tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post2668353066185980696..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: Empiricism, Rationalism and Generative GrammarNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-177749481532781672012-11-25T12:57:05.974-08:002012-11-25T12:57:05.974-08:00This comment is not worth commenting on. Sorry. This comment is not worth commenting on. Sorry. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-55466149972505171622012-11-25T11:44:23.349-08:002012-11-25T11:44:23.349-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443435257902276459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-53640996826110176852012-10-25T05:21:49.750-07:002012-10-25T05:21:49.750-07:00Here I believe that we would disagree. We have lea...Here I believe that we would disagree. We have learned a great deal about UG by thinking though the logic of very simple cases (think aux inversion and its limits, or the boundedness of movement and anaphoric domains). Oftentimes the real filigree work has, in my view, not yielded insights proportional to the effort expended. But that's my view, others may (and surely will) disagree. However, even were you right, the insights would not arise unless you asked the question and this I fear is no longer pro forma, as it was when you were starting out in the field. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-33384505386258987432012-10-25T00:53:23.142-07:002012-10-25T00:53:23.142-07:00Good clarification. But isn't it ironic that ...Good clarification. But isn't it ironic that you can only make a really good case for UG by relying on the work of people who don't care about that so much, but do care about getting the details of their language right.AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-75768636464139466342012-10-25T00:51:47.715-07:002012-10-25T00:51:47.715-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-85429969320555351332012-10-24T16:41:06.450-07:002012-10-24T16:41:06.450-07:00I am not sure that I see Avery's point. I did...I am not sure that I see Avery's point. I did not mean to imply (though the trouble with tongue in cheek prose is how it shields your intentions) that detail work was unimportant. It is. But, and I do mean this, it is not important in itself, at least if one is a classical generativist. It is important because of what it can tell us about UG. If UG cares about grammars then it can only be investigated by studying grammars. Now grammars must be built by linguists and this is a very complex process, and requires addressing and adequately answering many issues of detail. Some people care about these details in themselves (Chomsky dubbed this finding grammars that are descriptively adequate). I don't actually. But I care about them if they are stepping stones to understanding UG (to allow descriptions of UG that are explanatorily adequate in Chomsky's parlance). UG is where the buck stops and that's what makes these filigree concerns interesting. So should we care about the details of how language work. Yes, but mainly those details that bear on UG and to know which these are it is always worth asking, as it seems to me that too few do: what does this work tell me about UG assuming it is correct?Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-46216523157060414222012-10-24T16:14:54.462-07:002012-10-24T16:14:54.462-07:00The problem I see with the attitude expressed in t...The problem I see with the attitude expressed in the first 2 paragraphs is that people who don't care about the details of how languages work will never be able to make a truly convincing case for any kind of UG, for the reason that among the bright undergraduates there will always be a substantial fraction who would rather pay attention to people who seem to care about the details of the evidence they are advancing for their positions than to people who don't. & if the people who do seem to care are philosophical empiricists, that will assure a steady supply of recruits to that position.AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.com