various topics

[John Myhill]

Wow, things certainly have gotten lively this weekend.


(1) Three cheers for Dan Everett's message on the responsibilities of those
who write reference grammars. It was

(2) I do not think that there are inherent relationships 'formalist=empirically
irresponsible' and 'functionalist=empirically responsible'. There are individual
formal linguists who are empirically responsible and there are individual
functional linguists who seem not to be. But the ATMOSPHERE of the discussions
is different. In discussions between formal linguists, it is routine for
the participants to refer to 'facts' about 'exotic languages' which no one
present knows and which no one present knows of a responsible work on, with
no one questioning this as potentially problematic; it is assumed that if
it is in print, it's true. In discussions between functional linguists,
this happens only extremely rarely. If a formalist is careful about data
from 'exotic' languages, it is because s/he personally believes that this
is the responsible thing to do. If a functionalist is careful about such
data, it is because of this but also because s/he is afraid of getting
shown up or getting a bad reputation; you just can't get away with as much.


(3) Contra Talmy, I think that the ongoing Edith Moravcsik/Matthew Dryer
and Dick Hudson/Michael Barlow arguments are indeed substantive. Please
continue! I am not sure
if Talmy's summary of Edith's position indeed accurately reflects it. Edith?

(4) Some of the discussants regarding reflexives in subject position seem to
have started including cases where they are purely emphatic (cf. Werner's
justified complaint). Nino originally made it quite clear that this is not
necessarily the case for Georgian, but some of the follow-up messages got a
little bit off the topic and started talking about emphatic usages without
emphasizing that they were changing the topic a little, hence Werner's
comment.

(5) I think that certainly English -self form usages are definitely best
explained
with a discourse account, but we definitely
need to refer to formal/structural factors as well to get the best
description. I think one would have to be kind of a fanatic one way or the
other to conclude otherwise. Contrary to what John Moore suggested, I was
NOT 'getting at' a purely discourse-based analysis for English reflexives
as well! I remember once I got excited about this for a few weeks sometime
around 1987 but after a while I decided this was just too artificial for
English. For jibun, though, this is definitely what's needed.

(6) Regarding Johanna's message: The more spontaneous mode of interaction
which has characterized recent messages on funknet makes me feel more
RELAXED. People are saying what they think in a nice straightforward way.
What makes me feel
nervous is if everyone is trying to be diplomatic, either to be polite or
to make it
appear as though functionalists really agree more than we do. Who needs to
be distracted
by this?

John Myhill