On nonobjects of syntactic study

[Dan Everett]

Syd,

I agree with everything you said, more or less.

Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sydney Lamb" <lamb at RICE.EDU>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: On nonobjects of syntactic study


> Dan - I have no quarrel with nuch of what you say in your
> message of Wed, 11 Jul 2001,
>
> > Good points. I will try to respond to them. My response in caps.
>
> And I'll respond to a few of your caps responses in my
> lower-case:
>
> > THE IDEAL SPEAKER-HEARER IS AN ILLUSION TO BE SURE. AND BILL CROFT, IN
HIS
> > BOOK _EXPLAINING LANGUAGE CHANGE_ OFFERS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
ABSTRACTIONS
> > THE CONSTRAINT THAT OUR GENERALIZATIONS BE BASED ON THINGS WHICH ARE
> > 'SPATIALLY-TEMPORALLY BOUNDED', WHICH I THINK IS A GREAT IDEA. ON THE
OTHER
> > HAND, I BELIEVE THAT MOST OF WHAT WE STUDY IS IDEALIZED AND ILLUSORY.
> > ...
>
> But we should try to get beyond the illusions and study reality.
>
> > ...
> > YES, WE CAN. BUT WE MAY STUDY THEM 'AS IF THEY WERE ISOLATED' KNOWING
THAT
> > WE ARE NOT AND KNOWING THAT TO BE A MAXIMALLY USEFUL STORY (IF THAT IS
> > ...
>
> I don't understand how it helps to study them as if they were
> isolated.
>
> > > > ...
> > > linguistics while also being realistic. Instead of imagining an
> > > 'ideal speaker-hearer' we can observe the Typical
> > > speaker-hearer, a real object. Our concern should be with the
> > > linguistic system(s) of such (a) person(s). Moreover, we know
> > > ...
> >
> > I AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT THAT THE TYPICAL SPEAKER-HEARER IS ALSO
AN
> > IDEALIZATION. THERE ARE ONLY SPEAKER-HEARERs - PLURAL - NOT SINGULAR.
JUST
>
> Evidently you misunderstand: What I am advocating as object of
> study is NOT some abstract 'typical speaker-hearer' but one or
> more actual speaker-hearers; hence, not an idealization.  On
> thinking it over i see that it would have been better to
> say 'representative speaker-hearer'. For example, what I called
> my 'Northfork Mono Grammar' was actually -- and consciously and
> intentionally -- a description of the system of one
> representative speaker, my informant Lucy Kinsman. The title was
> perhaps misleading, but less so if (as I surmised and hoped) whe
> really was representative.
>
> > AS *LANGUAGE* IS AN IDEALIZATION. LANGUAGES ARE TOO, BUT PERHAPS LESS
SO.
> > PERHAPS MORE USEFUL. ULTIMATELY PRAGMATISM LEADS, I BELIEVE, TO A RETURN
TO
> > DESCRIPTIVISM AND THEORIES/STORIES CONCERNED WITH PLURALITIES, PEOPLE,
WIDER
> > AND THICKER CONNECTIONS, WHERE DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGES BECOME AGAIN
AS
> > IMPORTANT AS SIMILARITIES.
>
> Yes, right on. Except that languages are also too much of an
> idealization to be realisticalluy studied. The 'individual
> language' is a very abstract concept, so much so that it
> could be considered illusory. What is real, by contrast, is
> people speaking. And each person's system differs from that of
> every other person -- hence misunderstanding and imperfect
> understanding, which we observe going on all the time --
> probably even now.
>
> So its not only differences among languages that are important,
> but differences among the linguistic systems of people who are
> (loosely) said to 'speak the same language'.
>
> We have to give up the idea that linguists should be studying
> languages, if we want to be realistic, for languages do not
> exist. Instead, linguists should be studying people speaking and
> comprehending, and figuring out what they can about the
> neurocognitive systems of those people.
>
> All the best,  - Syd
>
> Sydney M. Lamb                  http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/
> Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences
> Rice University, Houston, TX