various topics

[John Myhill]

Regarding Diego's point:

Let me try to put this as diplomatically as I am capable while still making my
basic point.

It is certainly true that there are cases of empirically irresponsibility
among functionalists. But well-known cases such as you have cited have a
remarkable tendency to be ultimately traceable to the claims of an
extremely limited number of individuals working within the framework of
functionalism (an EXTREMELY limited number) whose claims are, shall we say,
accepted by their disciples without perhaps receiving the degree of careful
and critical scrutiny which they might receive had they been advanced by
researchers with less, shall we say, verve.

They are not the norm. In formal linguistics, they are the norm (though my
no means universal).

Incidentally, Paz Naylor is a woman.

John Myhill


FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu




>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, John Myhill wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Uff!  That is a rather challengeable "slip of the fingers (on the
>keyboard)". This is the sort of black-and-white judgements that have
>hindered understanding in this discussion, as Givon pointed out yesterday.
>
>At least two counterexamples can be cited that call for a softening of the
>above statement: One is the much cited "impersonal, non-promotional
>passive" of Spanish, which has given rise to the most fantastic theories
>on the evolution of "passives", simply by paraphrasing traditional or
>traditionally tainted grammars. The other is the celebrated "ergativity"
>for some, "voice" for others, nature of Tagalog and sister languages,
>analyses that always leak; with the most notable exception of one proposed
>not precisely in the context of typological comparison, but from the
>insights of a native speaker, who apparently did not feel pressed by any
>straitjacket forcing him to abide to what was/is in the market:
>
>Naylor, Paz-Buenaventura. 1995. Subject, topic and Tagalog syntax. In:
>        Bennet, D. et al. 161-201. Object, Voice, and Ergativity.
>        University of London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
>
>This paper is so nice to read, especially because it puts a categorical
>end to the phantasies existing on Tagalog syntax.
>
>In view of the two counterexamples cited (and I'm sure people can come up
>with more), John's above claim needs mending. I would suggest first of all
>to speak in terms of tendencies rather than in terms of "discreet"
>categories (the latter being an antifunctional precept).  Second, the
>tendency that can be linked to the folks on the other sidewalk is that the
>data are secondary to the model, while on our sidewalk the ***TENDENCY***
>is to let the data speak first and then try to come up with some
>explanation that need not be constrained by the structural configuration
>of the phenomenon dealt with.  In other words, Chomskians (which is what
>most people on this list have in mind when they say "formalists") are
>deductive (a bit too much for some), while functionalists tend to be
>inductive. The professional irresponsibilities incurred by either group
>are not intrinsec to the approach, they simply reveal how lazy a linguist
>can be when it comes to testing a retesting.
>
>J. Diego Quesada
>University of Toronto