Dan Everett: Word formation constraints (reply to Alec Marantz)

[Martha McGinnis]

Folks,

I have been traveling. Before I attempt an answer in more detail to Alec's
posting, let me say what the difference is between a formal theory and a
'nonformal theory'. A formal theory is, like DM, MP, etc, a theory in
which FORM drives the model, rather than meaning. That is, meaning is not
directly causally implicated in the model. In this sense. DM, like MP, are
structuralist theories. Generative semantics, on the other hand, would not
have been a formal theory in this sense (many formalists seem to confuse
'formal' with 'explicit', well-defined, generative, etc. But that is a
mistake, historically and etymologically. Structuralist and
formalist/formal are synonyms in this, fairly wide spread and traditional,
understanding (hence I am puzzled as to why it would be hard for Alec to
see this).

In any case, my 'real concern' is not Wari' quotatives. That is merely a
very good example of the problem. My real concern is the problem that such
examples raise. I have not yet seen in Andrew Carnie's thesis, for example
(but I am working my way through it slowly, so if it is there, my
apologies to Andrew), an attempt to ask the question of where the
predicate node arises for the S to move into. It is just there in the
phrase structure. And Alec makes no attempt to answer my question either.
He merely restates Heidi's proposal, namely, that Andrew's thesis probably
provides the answer. As I said in response to Heidi, this may in fact be
true. But there are technical problems and I, as an outsider, am merely
trying to see how DM would answer it. It is interesting that no one has
yet tried to, not even in response to my last message. However, I have a
long list of emails following this one, so perhaps someone will.

Cheers,

Dan Everett