Robert Chametzky has some useful things to say about the
absence of theoretical work within syntax that I labored to make clear in an
earlier post (here).
He distinguishes metatheoretical, theoretical and analytic work, the last being
by far the predominant type of research. All three are valuable, but, as a
matter of fact, the third is what predominates in syntax and is what is
generally, inaptly, called “theoretical.” Here is Rob’s tripartite typology,
pp. xvii-xix from his sadly under read book A
Theory of Phrase Markers and the Extended Base available here.
I transcribe, with some indicated omissions, the relevant two pages immediately
below.
There are three sorts of work that
can generally be distinguished in empirical inquiry. One is metatheoretical, a
second is theoretical and the third is analytic. As is often the case, the
boundaries are not sharp and so the types shade off into the other, but the
distinctions are real enough for the core cases. I take up each in turn.
Metatheoretical
work is theory of theory, and divides into two sorts: general and (domain)
specific. General metatheoretical
work is concerned with developing and investigating adequacy conditions for any
theory in any domain. So, for example, it is generally agreed that theories
should be (1) consistent and coherent, both internally and with other
well-established theories; (2) explicit; and (3) simple…Specific metatheoretical work is concerned with adequacy conditions
for theory in a particular domain. So, for example, in linguistics we have
Chomsky’s (1964, 1965) familian distinctions between observational, descriptive
and explanatory adquequacy. Whether such work is “philosophy” or, in this case
“linguistics” seems to me a pointless question.
Theoretical
work is concerned with developing and investigating primitives, derived
concepts and architecture within a particular domain of inquiry. This work will
also deploy and test concepts developed in metatheoretical work against the
results of actual theory construction in a domain, allowing for both evaluating
of the domain theory and sharpening of the metatheoretical concepts. Note this
well: deployment of metatheoretical
concepts is not metatheoretical work;
it is theoretical work.
Analytic
work is concerned with investigating the (phenomena of the) domain in question.
It deploys and tests concepts and architecture developed in theoretical work,
allowing for both understanding of the domain and sharpening of the theoretical
concepts. Note this well: deployment
of theoretical concepts is not
theoretical work, it is analytic work. Analytic work is what overwhelmingly
most linguists do overwhelmingly most of the time…
Linguists tend to confuse analytic
work with theoretical work and theoretical work with metatheoretical work…
Linguists typically distinguish not
among the three types of work described above, but rather between “theoretical”
and “descriptive” work, where both of these are better understood as analytic
work, with, respectively, more or less reliance on or reference to a specific
framework and its concepts and architecture…This distinction between “theoretical”
and “descriptive” is not only ill-conceived, but also, for reasons I do not
fully understand, invidious. The tripartite distinction discussed above
involves no evaluative component for or ranking of the three sorts of work
other…
