tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post6306807837203712430..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: A (shortish) whig history of Generative Grammar (part 2)Norberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-3435499364118226012020-01-24T20:28:02.215-08:002020-01-24T20:28:02.215-08:00I will tell you about grammar in details. You know...I will tell you about grammar in details. You know, in linguistics, generative grammar is grammar that indicates the structure and interpretation of sentences which native speakers of a language accept as belonging to the language. I hope, you will understand about generative grammar. <a href="https://www.theacademicpapers.co.uk/masters-dissertation-help.php" rel="nofollow">Master dissertation writing service</a>.<br /><br />Isabell Kiralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04044618767164946437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-91285854071509532832015-05-26T22:30:53.499-07:002015-05-26T22:30:53.499-07:00Excellent Blog! I have been impressed by your thou...Excellent Blog! I have been impressed by your thoughts and the way you.<a href="http://www.academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammarly" rel="nofollow">Grammarly reviews</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16701173041666870571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-8922956416978004842015-04-07T01:27:01.750-07:002015-04-07T01:27:01.750-07:00I think there's one issue involving the NA'...I think there's one issue involving the NA's that's going to subvert any attempt to enlighten the GP's, which is the significance of 'linguistically significant generalizations'. Generative Grammar started with a lot of effort to combine things that might be regarded as disjoint aspects of language structure into coherent packages unified by generalizations, and has never gotten away from this activity, but many of the NA's have never understood it. I.e. Quine's 'methodological reflections' paper, and similar reflections by Suppes (e.g. I think in 'Elimination of quantifiers in the semantics of natural language by use of extended relation algebras' from 1976). Suppes' issue was that he could simplify semantics (he thought) by removing quantifiers from the NP, losing the generalization that, in English, they precede the noun and adjective in all the conventional NP positions, and he professed not to understand why losing that syntactic generalization wasn't a good bargain for his supposedly better semantics (I actually talked about it with him once).<br /><br />In principle, I think these queries are addressed by the Peacocke/Davies concept of Marr-style level 1.5 (but thinking of language learning and its concomitants such as change as the 'linguistic knowledge editor', rather than the imaginary surgeries deployed by Davies in his 5% article), but I believe that there are plenty of unpersuadeds wandering around in linguistics itself, let alone neighboring disciplines, and if this cannot be sorted out, they will subvert any attempt to get the GP to like generative grammar. We might think we've explained it adequately to ourselves and each other, but if people don't get it, we actually haven't.AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-32991076590781184502015-03-31T08:20:49.363-07:002015-03-31T08:20:49.363-07:00There are two more installments of this history wh...There are two more installments of this history where this topic is broached more seriously. I hope that addresses your question in part. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-52355811085483575542015-03-31T07:42:47.869-07:002015-03-31T07:42:47.869-07:00I am very curious to know if GG is truly cumulativ...I am very curious to know if GG is truly cumulative, either with respect to <i>effects</i> or <i>explanations</i> of effects. I ask because I gather from reading history and philosophy of science that cumulativity does not always hold, even in canonical sciences.<br /><br />The example I remember reading about has to do with planetary motion. If I'm remembering the details correctly, Descartes explained planetary motion by invoking an ether, i.e., a medium through which planets travel. The ether explained general facts about planetary motion (e.g., why planetary orbits have the shape they do), but it also explained why all the planets go in the same direction around the sun. When Newton's theory of gravity ultimately replaced Descartes' ether, it still explained general facts about planetary motion, but it did not explain why all the planets go in the same direction. Hence, the interesting historical and philosophical (of science) fact that Newton's theory was considered a better theory despite the fact that it failed to explain everything Descartes' theory explained.<br /><br />So, to bring it back to GG, are there any phenomena like this in language? It would be interesting (to me, anyway) if, say, something that government-binding theory gave a good explanation of turns out to be unexplained by minimalism, while minimalism was still taken to be an improvement on GB.Noah Motionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150446498549219747noreply@blogger.com