Grammar with a G

[Rob Freeman]

I was hoping some more debate might come up on the (abstract) merits of analogy,
and how it relates to functionalism and systemic contrast (whether or not faced
with observations at a neural level). But as none seems forthcoming just a final
comment on 'reductionism'. I don't see basing examples on syntactic abstractions
(the usual idea of G-grammar) as inherently less reductionistic than basing
syntactic abstractions on examples (which is analogy). Even where 'reductionism'
might be thought of as bad, which is by no means always, grounding in examples is
simply not more reductionist, if anything it is less.

Remember what we are discussing here. Essentially they are systems. Linguists have
traditionally been rather weak on systems. Chomsky bought some mathematical
machinery over to formalize a traditional one (combination?), the functional
tradition has revered (though dare I say largely ignored) another (contrast?). I
believe Helmslev and others(?) proposed some other pretty esoteric ones (also along
the lines of contrast?). But they are all systems. One might seem more 'concrete'
than another, but that is simply another aspect of evidence in favour or against.
One might seem to over simplify, but all systems, thank goodness, simplify. Let's
not all get so caught up in the artifacts or our art that we forget we are all
proposing systems. It's not system or not, it's one or another. Remember that under
all of your understanding lies an assumption of system, and I think the gulfs
between us will narrow.

Rob