autonomy, etc.

Nicholas Kibre nick at STL.RESEARCH.PANASONIC.COM
Fri Jan 10 00:01:48 UTC 1997


Ultimately, it seems that the autonomous syntax and and
functionalist/cognitive position are more edges of a continuum than
strictly opposing viewpoints. Nearly veryone agrees that language is
shaped both by innate cognitive mechanisms, at least partially specialized
for linguistic function, and by the demands of usage; our only point of
disagreement is how tightly the former constraints the range of possible
systems, and how much regularity is due to the pressures of the latter.

What is striking is that, although almost everyone in this field seems to
have strong feelings about what precise point along this spectrum is
optimal, fairly little research really seems to address this issue
empirically. Neurology may eventually be able to answer this question,
but it may be a long wait!

Ultimately, unless the issue is addressed directly, no amount of
discussion between different camps is likely to convince anyone to change
their mind. Currently, different linguists use different types of
explanations, I think largely out of preference. I think if we want to
resolve things more concretely, we need to think more about what the
implications of claiming that a certain regularity is innate or
functionally motivated would be.

This is not meant to claim that I know what these implications would be. Any
thoughts?

Nick Kibre

Btw: Thanks to all who contributed to my email corpus!

 ---------o---  Nicholas Kibre /'nihkahlahs 'kayber/
         /      Research Linguist/Speech Programmer
        /       Panasonic Speech Technology Laboratory
 __=========__  805 687 0110 xt 230
 | |_|_|_|_| |  nick at stl.research.panasonic.com
 |_|_______|_|
 --o=o---o=o--  http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/depts/linguistics/grads.html#kibre



More information about the Funknet mailing list