antonomy of syntax

[Johanna Rubba]

To respond to Edith, I was writing about _explanation_ in linguistics,
not description. It was clear from early in the program that generative
linguistics had explanation as its goal, whether or not the program has
ever achieved this. I think it is also clear that it has long been a
goal of generativism to prove the existence of an innate,
syntax-specific module, _physically_ distinct from other parts of the
brain that process language (Chomsky's 'language organ'), to _explain_
the facts of syntactic structure, and thus to minimize to zero if
possible the involvement of semantics in the explanation of syntax. The
description of this module's workings would then constitute an
explanation of why syntax is the way it is.

I did some browsing in some foundational works of cognitive and
functional linguistics, and several make explicit mention of autonomy of
syntax being a central tenet of generative linguistics which they
reject, replacing it with a tenet that claims the opposite. These ideas
are laid out in parts of the work which are intended to summarize the
core, central aspects of the cognitive/functional program, so I assume
this means the autonomy thesis is a major difference between the
research programs, at least in the view of some of the founders of these
alternative theories. Some quotes:

"Central to [Cognitive Grammar's] conception of grammatical structure
are three closely related claims, which define the focal concern of this
book ...
2. Grammar (or syntax) does not constitute an autonomous formal level of
representation. Instead, grammar is sysmbolic in nature, consisting in
the conventional symbolization of semantic structure." Langacker,
_Foundations of Cognitive Grammar_ Vol. 1, p. 2.

Givon, in _Syntax: A functional/typological introduction_, lists among 8
core components of generative grammar, the following one:
"a. Structure and function: Language -- and syntax -- were conceived of
as structure, existing and understandable independently of meaning or
function. 'Autonomous syntax' then consituted its own explanation even
within linguistics ..." (p. 7). He goes on to say at the end of this
list: "The approach to the study of syntax adopted in this book
developed gradually as a rejection of all the tenets of the
transformational-generative tradition as listed above" (p. 9).

George Lakoff, in _Women, Fire and Dangerous Things_, devotes a brief
chapter to "The Formalist Enterprise", tracing the origin of formal
theories of syntax to the history of mathematics, logic, and philosopy.
I quote: "The idea that natural language syntax is independent of
semantics derives from the attempt to impose the structure of
mathematical logic on the study of human language and human thought in
general" (p. 225). He writes a short bit later "The question of whether
there is an independent syntax for natural language comes down to the
question of whether the metaphorical definition that defines the
enterprise of generative grammar is a reasonable way to comprehend
natural language. Intuitively the idea that a natural language is made
up of ininterpreted symbols is rather strange ... if language is a way
of framing and expressing thought so it can be communicated, then one
would expect that many (not nedessarily all) aspects of natural language
syntax would be dependent in at least some way on the thoughts
expressed" (p.228).

The fact that both 'camps' have had to compromise a bit due to
problematic data (as Lakoff notes in the quote given here) doesn't
minimize the importance of autonomy vs. non-autonomy. There may be
practitioners of each kind of linguistics who take on this particular
'article of faith' with more or less confidence/enthusiasm, but the
salience of discussions of autonomy in these foundational works seems to
me to be evidence of major disagreement on this principle. It also
nearly always comes up in cross-theory discussions that I have with
generative theorists. A favorite challenge of generativists is to name
some favorite point of syntax (co-reference, for example) and ask 'How
are you going to motivate _that_ semantically?'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
• E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
                                       **
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~