tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post2070081116169660431..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: On Syntactic StructuresNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-62037239915361811852017-02-01T14:08:21.054-08:002017-02-01T14:08:21.054-08:00Indeed! It's about time that book was reissued...Indeed! It's about time that book was reissued. I spent a lot of money for a battered copy:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06409248369107264434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-1911837716702013722017-01-31T14:33:31.482-08:002017-01-31T14:33:31.482-08:00yep. Also beautifully brought out in that opening ...yep. Also beautifully brought out in that opening essay in `essays on form and interpretation'. davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-59684216155602040702017-01-31T05:04:19.566-08:002017-01-31T05:04:19.566-08:00My favorite - and the reason I think it can and sh...My favorite - and the reason I think it can and should kick off almost any linguistics course at all - is that not only is there a concrete proposal about the family of Gs, but we are shown that one can PROVE things about the family of Gs - and not only that, you can develop mathematical proofs about what the possible Gs must be using nothing more than the extension of a particular G (the "string language"), and (though not shown) those proofs can be pretty airtight and (though not shown) the same results then apply to *any* further grammatical formalism, regardless of the intension of the Gs. Underappreciated and maligned by many linguists still after the distance that developed between linguistics and the formal language community (under the belief that this method presupposes a claim that matching the string language was *sufficient* for a linguistic theory - which it obviously does not). Hope this point sees a solid treatment in the book.ewanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00161859381870853353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-11037392877151733572017-01-27T12:56:36.634-08:002017-01-27T12:56:36.634-08:00A great summary of the highlights! I think the aut...A great summary of the highlights! I think the autonomy/indepenence thesis perhaps deserves a mention in its own right. I've lost count of how many times I've heard/read that Chomsky rejects semantics as a discipline. It is clear in SS, and subsequent work, that the claim is not only that syntax is not reducible to semantics, but that progress can be made on semantic issues precisely by gaining a better understanding of syntax as a constraint upon meaning. Of course, there have been many twists and turns since '57, but the basic insight that semantics can be pursued as an interface problem rather than as a problem of communication or reference seems as pertinent today as it was revolutionary back then.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06409248369107264434noreply@blogger.com