Myhill's message

[John Myhill]

Thank you for defending me, Joan. I certainly did not intend my comment
to be interpreted as an `optimistic anticipation of our colleague's death.'
I was simply stating that the social phenomenon of Chomskyism--a phenomenon
in which the beliefs of a single person, whose basic contribution to
linguistics was made about 40 years ago and who, in my opinion, has not
done much new of interest since then (with the exception of 'On
wh-movement', which I think is a really great article with actual insights,
although it is more than 20 years old), to a significant extent direct the
course of the field, both in terms of blindly following on the one hand and
serving as a rallying cry for 'alternatives to...' on the other hand--this
phenomenon is not something which can be dealt with by a conference on
'alternatives'. There is obviously a magnetic appeal which the guy has on
some people which can't be argued with rationally and which is going to be
around as long as he is around.

Let me draw a parallel with physics (SORRY, I know I've criticized other
functionalists for doing things like this, but I'm talking to the
formalists on
this network now, and this is the kind of argument they like). Let's suppose
that after 1910, `Einsteinism' developed as a phenomenon comparable to
today's Chomskyism, AFTER Einstein had made what is now recognized as his
contribution, but 48 years BEFORE he died. Since Einstein didn't care much
for quantum mechanics ('God doesn't play dice'), quantum mechanics might
not have developed. Everyone would have spent all their time arguing about
Einstein's post-1910 theories, which don't seem to be leading to anything,
or on organizing conferences on `alternatives to Einstein.' There wouldn't
have been much progress. Fortunately that didn't happen. But that IS what's
been happening to a large extent in syntax in the last 30 years. After
spending my whole career as
a linguist listening to arguments going nowhere and convincing no one on the
merits or lack of such of the Chomskyan enterprise, I am firmly convinced that
they are a waste of time.

I did not intend what I wrote to be 'flame-bait'. I was addressing my
message to functionalists, suggesting that we not waste time arguing with
Chomskyists. Some formalists on the network got set off by this
inter-functionalist dialogue and took what I said as provocative in a very
different way than I had intended it. I mentioned Stanford because of the
presence there of several people who have in one way or another directed
their careers towards being 'alternatives to Chomsky' in a way which I have
not found to be any better than the original. It was part of a general
criticism of building a program around `alternatives to Chomsky.'

Brian MacWhinney wrote:

>    However, as a psycholinguist, I have been disappointed by five crucial
> "strategic" decisions in the development of OT that have tended to vitiate
> its potential for constructing a psychologically plausible linguistic theory
> of the type that Joan Bresnan and others have often sought.

Well, gee, let's try to figure out why this may have happened. Could it
possibly be that Chomsky isn't interested in such a theory, and his
followers aren't interested in thinking for themselves? So when will this
change? I guess when
Chomsky isn't on the scene, right? Any other ideas when it will change? Any
other ideas on why OT has made these decisions?

And Joan's comment is quite to the point:

        It appears, though, that our friends at MIT are quite willing to
        believe that we all harbor death wishes for their colleague.  That's a
        shame, and I find it hard to believe that it could be said in
        sincerity.  If it was, then it shows what a long way we have to go to
        build some of the intellectual bridges I was talking about.

Again, though, I'm afraid Joan is being overly optimistic. The problem (in
this case) is not 'intellectual bridges.' The problem is the paranoid
mindset of our friends at MIT and the degree of influence they have over
the field. My statement touched a raw nerve, because, I would hypothesize,
our friends at MIT fear they will be intellectually lost without Chomsky
and can't imagine that they will one day have to think for themselves.

Please note that I am by NO means saying that everyone to do with Chomsky
should be excised from intellectual history, as other functionalists have
suggested. By no means. Chomsky has made a great contribution with some of
his articles, although this was a pretty long time ago. But the overall
effect of Chomskyism, the personality cult which has built around him, has
at the same time been intellectually debilating, if not devastating, to the
field as a whole.

And with regard to Brian's statement that: `I think we should also
recognize the fact that the Chomskyan program will outlive the man'--it
depends upon what is understood by 'the Chomskyan program'. Chomsky is not
interested in `constructing a psychologically plausible linguistic theory',
taking into consideration functional factors, and he never will be. He is
resolutely, ideologically, intractably opposed to this. I consider this
bias and blindless to be the essence of 'the Chomskyan program', as it has
characterized this program from beginning to end. If Brian wants to make up
his own version of 'the Chomskyan program' which leaves this bias out, then
I would agree with his statement (though this definition of 'the Chomskyan
program' seems bizarre to me). But if we understand 'the Chomskyan program'
to mean a rejection of psychological plausibility, empirical data on usage,
functional constraints, etc., as has been uniformly characteristic of
Chomsky's writings, then I am not at all sure that this will survive him by
much. I hope not.

John