The Historiography of Generative Linguistics

Оглавление

András Kertész. The Historiography of Generative Linguistics

Inhalt

Preface

1 Introduction. 1.1 The problem (P)

1.2 The structure of the book

1.3 Background information: The KuhnianKuhnian approach to ›scientificscientific revolutionrevolutionscientific‹

2 From ›scientificscientific revolutionrevolutionscientific‹ to ›unscientific revolutionrevolutionunscientific‹ 2.0 Introduction

2.1 ›Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures‹ (ChomskyChomsky, Noam 1957) 2.1.0 Background information

2.1.1 Revolution. 2.1.1.1 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian. 2.1.1.1.1 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian and the climate of opinionclimate of opinion

2.1.1.1.2 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian and linguistic metatheorymetatheory

2.1.1.2 Other kinds of revolution. 2.1.1.2.1 Intellectual revolution

2.1.1.2.2 Laudanian revolutionrevolutionLaudanian

2.1.2 No revolution. 2.1.2.1 Evolution

2.1.2.2 The impact of the formalformal sciencescienceformals

2.1.2.3 One of the neo-Bloomfieldianneo-BloomfieldianBloomfieldian trends

2.1.2.4 The improvement of distributionalismdistributional

2.1.2.5 ChomskyChomsky, Noam as a metalinguistmetalinguist

2.1.2.6 Rhetoric. 2.1.2.6.1 Revolutionary rhetoricrhetoric and coupcoup

2.1.2.6.2 Revolutionary rhetoricrhetoric and linguistics warslinguistics wars

2.2 ›AspectsAspects of the Theory of Syntax‹ (ChomskyChomsky, Noam 1965) 2.2.0 Background information

2.2.1 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian

2.2.2 No revolution. 2.2.2.1 Ideology

2.2.2.2 Untenable methodologymethodology and the clash of two kinds of personalities

2.3 ›The Sound Pattern of English‹ (ChomskyChomsky, Noam & HalleHalle, Morris 1968) 2.3.0 Background information

2.3.1 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian

2.4 ›Lectures on Government and Binding‹ (ChomskyChomsky, Noam 1981) 2.4.0 Background information

2.4.1 Revolution. 2.4.1.1 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian

2.4.1.2 KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian without paradigmparadigm replacement

2.4.2 No revolution

2.5 ›The Minimalist ProgramMinimalist Program‹ (ChomskyChomsky, Noam 1995) 2.5.0 Background information

2.5.1 Revolution. 2.5.1.1 Revolution within a revolutionrevolutionwithin a revolution

2.5.1.2 Lakatosian research programresearchprogram

2.5.2 No revolution. 2.5.2.1 Spurious science

2.5.2.2 Unscientific revolution

2.6 Digression: ChomskyChomsky, Noam’s self-assessment

2.7 Summary. 2.7.1 Overview

2.7.2 Relevant correlations among the approaches

2.7.3 Relevant differences among the approaches

3 Metahistoriographical evaluation. 3.0 Introduction

3.1 Factors weakening the credibility of (MP1)-(MP22) 3.1.1 Bias. 3.1.1.1 The historiographers’ biasbias against one another

3.1.1.2 The historiographers’ biasbias towards or against ChomskyChomsky, Noam’s personality

3.1.1.3 The historiographers’ biasbias towards or against the object of investigation

3.1.1.4 Legitimization. 3.1.1.4.1 Historiographical frameworks as legitimizing tools

3.1.1.4.2 The legitimizing interpretation of historical datadata

3.1.1.4.3 Circular argumentation as a legitimizing tool

3.1.2 Method. 3.1.2.1 The application of historiographicalhistoriography frameworks

3.1.2.2 The necessity of philosophical reflection

3.2 Summary

4 Historiography and plausible argumentationplausibleargumentation. 4.0 Introduction

4.1 A possible solutionsolution to (P): (SP23)

4.2 The p-modelmodelp-1. 4.2.1 The main features of the p-modelmodelp-

4.2.2 An outline of the p-modelmodelp-

4.3 Summary

5 Case study. 5.0 Introduction. 5.0.1 The problem

5.0.2 The structure of the chapter

5.0.3 The starting and the final p-contextp-context

5.1 First example: What is a ›languagelanguage‹?

5.2 Second example: What sort of grammargrammar is needed? 5.2.0 The p-problemp-problem

5.2.1 English is not a finitefinite state languagelanguage1

5.2.2 Phrase structure

5.2.3 Transformations

5.2.4 The solutionsolution of the p-problemp-problem

5.3 Third example: the introduction of the evaluation procedureevaluation procedure

5.4 Summary

6 Open questions. 6.0 Introduction

6.1 Historical stages. 6.1.1 What kind of relationship is there between the problem solutionssolution of a particular historical stage and the more effective problem solutions of the next stage immediately following it?

6.1.2 How should (SP23) treat cases in which in particular stages of generative linguistics problem solutionssolution emerge that have previously been rejected in some earlier stage?

6.1.3 How should (SP23) treat cases in which an earlier stage raised and tried to solve problems that a later stage could not cope with?

6.1.4 What are the constant elements that are present in every developmental stage of generative linguistics?

6.2 Rivals. 6.2.1 What is the relationship between Chomskyan generative linguistics and its alternatives within theoretical linguistics?

6.2.2 What is the relationship between the cognitivismcognitive of generative linguistics and behaviorismbehaviorism?1

6.3 Summary

7 Conclusions. 7.0 Introduction

7.1 The contribution of (SP23) to linguistic historiographyhistoriography

7.2 The contribution of (SP23) to linguistics

7.3 Summary: Why should linguists get out of bed in the morning?

References

Index of Names

Index of Subjects

Aarsleff, Hans

Allan, Keith

Andor, József

Anttila, Raimo

Arabatzis, Theodore

Babarczy, Anna

Bach, Emmon

Barnes, Barry

Barsky, Robert F

Behme, Christina

Bierwisch, Manfred

Bloor, David

Boeckx, Cedric

Botha, Rudolph P

Bresnan, Joan

Bricmont, Jean

Bromberger, Sylvain

Butterfield, Herbert

Chomsky, Noam

Cook, Vivian

Croft, William

Dougherty, Ray

Droste, Flip G

Falk, Julia S

Fiengo, Robert

Fillmore, Charles J

Fitch, Tecumseh W

Fought, John

Freidin, Robert

Gardner, Howard

Gazdar, Gerald

Goldberg, Adele E

Goldsmith, John A

Goodman, Nelson

Gray, Bennison

Grewendorf, Günther

Griffith, Belver

Grohmann, Kleanthes K

Hacken, Pius

Halász, Katinka

Halle, Morris

Harris, Randy Allen

Harris, Zellig S

Hauser, Marc. D

Henry, John

Hill, Archibald A

Hockett, Charles F

Hornstein, Norbert

Householder, Fred W

Huck, Geoffrey J

Hung, Edwin

Hyman, Malcolm D

Hymes, Dell

Jackendoff, Ray

Jäger, Ludwig

Johnson, David D

Johnson, Mark

Joseph, John E

Kay, Paul

Kertész, András

Kibbee, Douglas

Kiefer, Ferenc

Klausenburger, Jürgen

Koerner, E.F. Konrad

Kornmesser, Stephan

Kuhn, Thomas S

Lakatos, Imre

Lakoff, George

Lakoff, Robin

Langacker, Ronald W

Langendoen, D. Terence

Lappin, Shalom

Lasnik, Howard

Laudan, Larry

Lees, Robert

Leiber, Justin

Lenneberg, Eric. H

Levelt, Willem J.M

Levine, Robert D

Lightfoot, David

Lohndal, Terje

Lyons, John

Maher, John Peter

Masterman, Margaret

Matthews, Peter H

McCawley, James D

Miller, A.J

Miller, George A

Moravcsik, Edith A

Müller, Ralph-Axel

Müller, Stefan

Mullins, Nicholas C

Murray, Stephen O

Nevin, Bruce E

Newmeyer, Frederick J

Newson, Mark

Nielsen, Janet

Oesterreicher, Wulf

Otero, Carlos P

Percival, W. Keith

Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo

Pietsch, Wolfgang

Pinker, Stephen

Pollard, Carl

Polya, George

Popper, Karl R

Postal, Paul M

Pullum, Geoffrey K

Rákosi, Csilla

Rapp, Christof

Räz, Tim

Rescher, Nicholas

Richter, Frank

Riemer, Nick

Riemsdijk, Henk

Ross, John R

Sag, Ivan

Sampson, Geoffrey

Schikore, Jutta

Schnelle, Helmut

Scholl, Raphael

Scholz, Barbara C

Schütze, Carson T

Searle, John R

Sells, Peter

Seuren, Pieter A.M

Skinner, B.F

Sklar, Robert

Smith, Henry Lee

Stechow, Arnim

Sternefeld, Wolfgang

Thorne, James Peter

Tomalin, Marcus

Trager, George L

Uriagereka, Juan

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger

Vidanovič, Đorđe

Voegelin, C.F

Walton, Douglas N

Wells, Rulon

Williams, Edwin

Winston, Morton E

Wundt, Wilhelm

Yergin, Daniel

ad hominem

algorithm

anomaly

Aspects

authority

behaviorism

bias

biology

Bloomfieldian

certainty

circular

climate of opinion

cognitive

compactness

consistent

Construction Grammar

continuity

contradiction

coup

crisis

cyclic

data

decline

deductive

demarcation problem

dependency

disciplinary matrix

discovery procedure

distributional

economy

elegance

enthymematic

erosion

evaluation procedure

evolution

scientific

fallible

finite

finite state machine

formal

Galilean

gatekeeper

Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

generate

Government and Binding, Theory of

grammar

grammatical

grammaticality judgments

Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar

hermeneutic-functional

heuristic

historiography

history

IC analysis

ideology

immature

immediate constituent

incommensurable

inconsistency

inductive

infinite

Kuhnian

language

latent background assumption

legitimization

Lexical-Functional Grammar

linguistics wars

logic

mathematical

mature

mentalism

metahistoriographical

metalinguist

metascientific

metatheoretical

metatheory

methodology

minimalism

Minimalist Program

missionary zeal

model

conflict

functionalist

p-

modular

morpheme

morphology

neo-Bloomfieldian

object-scientific

paradigm

Parallel Architecture Theory

partisan historiography

p-context

perfection

perspective

combinative

contrastive

diagnostic

evaluative

exclusive

philosophy of science

phoneme

phonemics

phonology

phrase structure

physics

p-incompleteness

p-inconsistency

plausibility value

plausible

argumentation

inference

statement

pluralism

p-problem

Principles and Parameters, Theory of

prismatic

progress

recursive

research

program

tradition

resolution

retrospective

revolution

Copernican

intellectual

Kuhnian

Laudanian

linguistic

scientific

unscientific

within a revolution

revolutionary

rhetoric

science

formal

natural

normal

spurious

scientific

scientism

semantics

generative

interpretive

sentence

simplicity

social

solution

source

string

structuralism

symmetry

Syntactic Structures

theory

transformation

uncertainty

ungrammatical

utterance

virtual conceptual necessity

Whig history

X-bar theory

Fußnoten. Preface

1.1 The problem (P)

1.3 Background information: The Kuhnian approach to ›scientific revolution‹

2.0 Introduction

2.1.0 Background information

KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian and the climate of opinionclimate of opinion

KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian and linguistic metatheorymetatheory

Intellectual revolution

Laudanian revolutionrevolutionLaudanian

Evolution

The impact of the formalformal sciencescienceformals

One of the neo-Bloomfieldianneo-BloomfieldianBloomfieldian trends

The improvement of distributionalismdistributional

ChomskyChomsky, Noam as a metalinguistmetalinguist

Revolutionary rhetoricrhetoric and coupcoup

Revolutionary rhetoricrhetoric and linguistics warslinguistics wars

2.2.0 Background information

Ideology

Untenable methodologymethodology and the clash of two kinds of personalities

2.3.0 Background information

2.4.0 Background information

KuhnianKuhnian revolutionrevolutionKuhnian without paradigmparadigm replacement

2.4.2 No revolution

2.5.0 Background information

Lakatosian research programresearchprogram

Spurious science

Unscientific revolution

2.6 Digression: Chomsky’s self-assessment

2.7.1 Overview

2.7.2 Relevant correlations among the approaches

The historiographers’ biasbias against one another

Historiographical frameworks as legitimizing tools

The application of historiographicalhistoriography frameworks

4.1 A possible solution to (P): (SP23)

4.2 The p-model

4.2.1 The main features of the p-model

4.2.2 An outline of the p-model

5.0.1 The problem

5.0.3 The starting and the final p-context

5.1 First example: What is a ›language‹?

5.2.0 The p-problem

5.2.1 English is not a finite state language

5.2.2 Phrase structure

5.2.3 Transformations

5.3 Third example: the introduction of the evaluation procedure

6.1.1 What kind of relationship is there between the problem solutions of a particular historical stage and the more effective problem solutions of the next stage immediately following it?

6.1.3 How should (SP23) treat cases in which an earlier stage raised and tried to solve problems that a later stage could not cope with?

6.1.4 What are the constant elements that are present in every developmental stage of generative linguistics?

6.2.1 What is the relationship between Chomskyan generative linguistics and its alternatives within theoretical linguistics?

6.2.2 What is the relationship between the cognitivism of generative linguistics and behaviorism?

6.3 Summary

7.0 Introduction

Отрывок из книги

András Kertész

The Historiography of Generative Linguistics

.....

The second example is that KoernerKoerner, E.F. Konrad (1989: 102, 131; 2004: 37–40) considers NewmeyerNewmeyer, Frederick J.’s work to be ›partisan historiographypartisan historiography‹, too, implying that it gives a one-sided account of the facts while disregarding the methodologymethodology of historiographyhistoriography. Newmeyer (1986a) cites VoegelinVoegelin, C.F.’s review of Syntactic StructuresSyntactic Structures (Voegelin 1958) and claims that Voegelin evaluated the appearance of ChomskyChomsky, Noam’s work as a Copernican revolutionrevolutionCopernican. However, as Koerner maintains, the expression cited in Voegelin’s review occurs in a context in which the author evaluates Syntactic Structures negatively (Voegelin 1958: 230; cited in Koerner 1989: 130, 2004: 40).8 That is, Voegelin, in fact, stated the opposite of what Newmeyer attributes to him and therefore, Koerner concludes, Newmeyer’s method is extremely biasedbias historiography.9

The historiographicalhistoriography framework of the above statements is the methodologymethodology that was summarized in KoernerKoerner, E.F. Konrad (1989, 1995, 2002). According to Koerner (1989), historiography must consciously strive for impartiality, objectivity and must avoid ›partisan historiographypartisan historiography‹.10 However, in his later publications he differentiates this stance insofar as since there are no ›facts‹ without background assumptions, preferences might influence the interpretation of datadata. A wide range of documents must be consulted. As opposed to NewmeyerNewmeyer, Frederick J.’s historiography, personal memories and oral narratives cannot be viewed as reliable data resources (see Koerner 2002: 153–7). In accordance with this view, Koerner strongly opposes Newmeyer’s methodology, which exclusively relied on communication with the supporters of generative linguistics and ChomskyChomsky, Noam’s followers (Koerner 2002: 157). A historiographer of linguistics must be familiar not only with the linguistic theorytheory at issue, but, when necessary, give consideration to extra-linguistic factors such as the intellectual, sociologicalsocial, ideologicalideology and political aspects of an issue (Koerner 2002: 155).

.....