Grammar with a "G"

[Rob Freeman]

Tony A. Wright wrote:

> At 09:43 AM 3/22/99 -0600, Sydney M Lamb wrote:
>
> >If grammar "is just the observed regularities of collections of examples"
> >then it is the grammarian and not the speaker of the language that you are
> >talking about.
>
> If I give the mechanic an account of my car's behavior, namely that it dies
> out any time I let my foot off the gas, which I formalize using the
> following rule:
>
>      dies /   [- accelerator] __________   (dies immediately following an
> environment                                                negatively-specified for
> accelerator pressure).
>
> (snip)...
>
> Does this mean that my account, either the formal or informal version, says
> nothing about the car and only reflects my methodology and formalism of
> car-problem analysis?  I note that my mechanic insists on my
> observationally-adequate account of my car's behavior before he will even
> begin looking at it.

I would probably have to agree with Syd on this bit. We all work within a frame of
reference, not much use in arguing otherwise, that's not new. Point is, what can we do
with it? I think the distinction to be made is that rules like this are not much use
for making cars. Your mechanic might appreciate your subjective observations about the
car, but he needs knowledge of something more 'real' before he can fix it. We expect a
mechanic to know what lies under the hood, as linguists we might be expected to know
what lies under grammar, however useful subjective knowledge of grammar is in itself.

I was just trying to point to a useful reality (which I think analogy-based models for
what underlies grammar are) not argue that subjective reality was a new idea.

Rob