<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: antonomy of syntax</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> There are a few of us here on the fringes for whom the exchange between Edith Moravcsik and Johanna Rubba, with an interesting sidebar by John Moore, on the autonomy of syntax sounds like a debate on how many agels can dance on the head of a pin. Not that this thread is not fascinating, but at a recent conference another internationally known linguist said something like, "Nobody is trying to do away with rules of grammar." To which I replied, "Some of us are." Syd Lamb has published several papers on the "Unreality of Syntax." Vic Yngve has argued that the notion of language itself is a historical inheritance that impedes understanding what we are talking about. Steve Straight has posted his views on "The Myth of G" to this list recently. Paul Hopper continues to publish and present work on emergent grammars. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I have no doubt that syntax can be described autonomously. The question is "Why bother?" or rather, "What is gained and what is lost in linguistic theories that seem to require an autonomous syntactic module?" It would appear that for most linguists today the gains associated with an autonomous syntax outweigh the losses. But some of us have concluded the opposite.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Carl Mills</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>University of Cincinnati</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>