tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post75549294942184987..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: The deep conservatism of biological systems; some lessons for linguistsNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-76812483808987713162016-01-04T12:08:19.181-08:002016-01-04T12:08:19.181-08:00Oddly, I completely agree. Methodological ideals a...Oddly, I completely agree. Methodological ideals are not dispositive and maybe the case of RCs is one where it fails. However, it is a good general assumption, I believe, and one motivated by these biological discoveries (*or made more plausible by them). <br /><br />SO why do I agree with your point? Because OF COURSE the right way of proceeding is via the HARD work of unification. It is always useful to look at where things LOOK like they differ for showing that they do not actually do so is an accomplishment. Showing that two things that look similar are indeed similar (or the same) is not something that one generally gets kudos for (rightly IMO). So, you are right that the advice does not imply that looking for differences is nugatory. Wghat it does endorse is the view that one should not be quickly satisfied that one has found two different mechanisms. One wants very high standards of proof for this conclusion. This is a standard minimalist trope: we want high burdens of proof from those that violate our methodological maxims. This is the theme of the 93 minimalist paper, and I believe that it still holds.<br /><br />As for your skepticism re interface crash; I was expecting it and you may be right, though it makes for a very nice conceptual story.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-79668237158051708712016-01-04T11:28:34.727-08:002016-01-04T11:28:34.727-08:00I'd like to offer a measured dissent. (At leas...I'd like to offer a measured dissent. (At least I hope it's measured.) I think the work arguing that there are two ways to derive relative clauses is extremely insightful; it's linguistics at (or near) its best. If someone can then come along and find a way to unify things, that's all the better (though skimming the Sportiche paper you linked to, he relies on a notion of "crash" at the interfaces, so color me skeptical). But we wouldn't even know that there was anything <i>to</i> unify if not for that work.<br /><br />To put this another way, in order to be impressed with Gehring's work you have to first appreciate the nontrivial surface-diversity that is at play. If I told you that every species that took closeup photos of Pluto did it in the exact same way, I suspect you wouldn't be as impressed.<br /><br />So with all due respect to Elan Dresher's adage, I think papers saying "these two things that look like they're the same are really profoundly different" are very valuable (full disclosure: I've written one or two papers of this sort myself, so I'm obviously biased). First, it keeps the unifiers honest: after all, unifying is easy right up until you need to get the details right. Second, it tells us something about the <i>range</i> of things that our One True Mechanism is capable of generating, which I think brings us closer to – not further from – a proper understanding of that mechanism.<br />Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.com