antonomy of syntax

[Mills, Carl (MILLSCR)]

 There are a few of us here on the fringes for whom the exchange between
Edith Moravcsik and Johanna Rubba, with an interesting sidebar by John
Moore, on the autonomy of syntax sounds like a debate on how many agels can
dance on the head of a pin.  Not that this thread is not fascinating, but at
a recent conference another internationally known linguist said something
like, "Nobody is trying to do away with rules of grammar."  To which I
replied, "Some of us are."  Syd Lamb has published several papers on the
"Unreality of Syntax."  Vic Yngve has argued that the notion of  language
itself is a historical inheritance that impedes understanding what we are
talking about.  Steve Straight has posted his views on "The Myth of G" to
this list recently.  Paul Hopper continues to publish and present work on
emergent grammars.

I have no doubt that syntax can be described autonomously.  The question is
"Why bother?"  or rather, "What is gained and what is lost in linguistic
theories that seem to require an autonomous syntactic module?"  It would
appear that for most linguists today the gains associated with an autonomous
syntax outweigh the losses.  But some of us have concluded the opposite.

Carl Mills
University of Cincinnati

-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/19991220/917e1e18/attachment.htm>