<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Dear All,</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
It's been interesting to read today's exchanges on these themes but I would counsel against over-emphasising the shared properties of the frameworks labelled here as 'generative'. It's true that they are all generative in the mathematical sense that they aim
to provide an explicit means of generating a potentially infinite set of strings or sentences. However, there are many important differences between them. Thus, among current models, only what Martin calls C-generative ones are derivational and hence allow
movement from head to head. And it is only on a movement-based account that it makes sense to come up with constructs like vP, which have no analogues in HPSG or LFG. More generally, approaches such as these make only minimal use of functional categories whereas
they have proliferated within Minimalism, particularly in its cartographic and nanosyntactic instantiations. In addition, the latter make free use of null categories, which are kept to a minimum in other frameworks and indeed are forbidden as a matter of principle
in Role-and-Reference Grammar. And while it is true that the traditional constructs 'subject', 'object', as Adam says, do not figure as part of say HPSG or RRG or the variants of categorial grammar that I am familiar with, they are of course a core part of
LFG. Nor is it the case that there is necessarily a strict boundary between these approaches and construction-based models. A clear case in point is Sag's Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) which is just as formal and generative as HPSG but which aims
to take constructions as well as categories into account. I could go on, but I hope the general point is clear. There are many frameworks available and each has been developed with a specific theoretical rationale and justification in mind, and we should not
too hastily lump them together.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Best</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Nigel</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE<br>
Professor Emeritus of General & Romance Linguistics<br>
The University of Manchester</div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Linguistics & English Language<br>
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures<br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>The University of Manchester</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/nigel-vincent(f973a991-8ece-453e-abc5-3ca198c869dc).html</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev@yandex.ru><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 February 2021 1:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adam Singerman <adamsingerman@uchicago.edu>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] homeostatic property clusters</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>Dear Adam, dear colleagues,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>thank you very much for this message, to which I, as a linguist who has received both functional-typological and generative trainment and who has always been sympathetic to the best specimens of both worlds, fully subscribe.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With appreciation and best regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Peter</div>
<div> </div>
<div>11.02.2021, 01:29, "Adam Singerman" <adamsingerman@uchicago.edu>:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Dear all,<br>
<br>
Sorry in advance for the long message. I'm not sure how many<br>
subscribers to this list are like me in being broadly sympathetic to<br>
both the typological approach and the generative approach, without<br>
ever feeling fully satisfied by either. But I'd just like to respond<br>
to some of Martin's comments, which I don't feel do complete justice<br>
to how many generative grammarians view their approach. (Martin, maybe<br>
this message of mine can serve as a response to your 2018 blogpost<br>
critiquing the syntax chapter of my dissertation, which I meant to<br>
reply to but never did!)<br>
<br>
Let me say, at the outset, that in my view generative grammar isn't<br>
just Minimalism and its immediate ancestors but also includes a bunch<br>
of alternative/competing formalisms that have been developed over the<br>
past few decades, ranging from Lexical Functional Grammar and<br>
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar to Combinatory Categorial Grammar<br>
and Tree Adjoining Grammar.<br>
<br>
Re: labels like vP and CP, I think the former at this point is better<br>
defined than the latter. vP should be thought of as where the thematic<br>
relationships between the predicate and its arguments are established.<br>
Here "arguments" don't translate directly into the traditional notions<br>
of subject and object, which don't survive as intact notions (as far<br>
as I can tell) for either functional-typologists or generative<br>
grammarians, but rather onto structurally defined positions: internal<br>
argument as the sister of the verbal root, external arguments<br>
introduced slightly higher up in the structure, etc. A fair amount of<br>
generative work has gone toward figuring out how well these<br>
*structurally defined positions* map onto more traditional grammatical<br>
categories, without assuming a clear correspondence between them. And<br>
CP was originally proposed in the 80s, if I am not mistaken, as an<br>
endocentric solution to the puzzle of the category S, which was<br>
intuitively rather than structurally defined and which was exocentric.<br>
Subsequent research has complicated the idea of CP since many<br>
different proposals have been offered about how fine-grained the<br>
structure of these "Complementizer Phrases" could become, but I don't<br>
see how that process of fine-tuning the CP (or the "fine left<br>
periphery," as it's sometimes called, following Rizzi) is in principle<br>
all that different from what typologists do when they realize that<br>
some kind of general correlation that used to be seen as unitary needs<br>
to be further decomposed.<br>
<br>
As someone whose research focuses on a non-Indo-European language<br>
(Tuparí, iso code tpr) with grammatical categories rather different<br>
than the ones I'm used to from more familiar languages, I am *very<br>
sympathetic* to the view that generative grammar as a field of inquiry<br>
needs to pay much more attention to what it's assuming in terms of<br>
crosslinguistic comparability. This is why I think the biggest<br>
successes to come out of generative grammar (which, again, I take to<br>
include not only Minimalism and GB but also LFG, HPSG, GPSG, CCG, TAG)<br>
have to do with figuring out issues related to locality: it's not hard<br>
to find evidence that something has been displaced, but how can this<br>
intuitive idea of displacement be defined and constrained? In his<br>
e-mail, Martin referred to the "extremely complex movement operations"<br>
of generative syntax, but I don't think this is fair. In formalized<br>
Minimalism the movement operations are actually NOT complex. Rather,<br>
they're well-defined and apply locally. What can look superficially<br>
complex at times is that movement is an iterable operation. This is<br>
the key idea behind analyses of what's been termed "successive<br>
cyclicity," where it looks as if something that shows up in the matrix<br>
clause (often a content interrogative word or phrase) is interpreted<br>
thematically in a lower clause. This is also the case for what's been<br>
called raising. So I would dispute the characterization of these<br>
movement operations as complex. Of course, movement can be invoked<br>
inappropriately / without sufficient empirical support, in which case<br>
we would say that the analysis is weak; but I don't see how this is<br>
different, in principle, from phonological rules that are invoked<br>
without sufficient support.<br>
<br>
There are also ways to formalize "movement" in ways that don't<br>
actually invoke movement, or at least, don't invoke it to the same<br>
extent as mainstream Minimalist analyses do — this is where other<br>
formalisms, like Tree Adjoining Grammar and Combinatory Categorial<br>
Grammar, really shine in my opinion. The most interesting findings<br>
from the generative tradition, broadly construed, have to do with how<br>
to best categorize surface displacement in a computationally tractable<br>
way. Formalisms that succeed on this front (like TAG and CCG) don't<br>
say anything about a lot of grammatical issues that fieldworkers like<br>
myself face when dealing with raw data — but they're not designed to<br>
do that, anymore than the grammaticalization literature is designed to<br>
deal with successive cyclicity. I wish more extensive cross-linguistic<br>
work were done in TAG and CCG because I see a lot of underexplored<br>
potential there, but the nature of our field is that different<br>
formalisms get developed by different groups of researchers who tend<br>
to focus only on particular languages, blah blah blah...<br>
<br>
Finally, just as I don't think it would be appropriate to lump all<br>
historical linguists together or all functional-typologists together,<br>
the generative world is internally very diverse and full of<br>
disagreement. In my view much of the least interesting (and,<br>
empirically, least defensible) stuff to come out of the generative<br>
tradition is crummy precisely because it doesn't bother to contend<br>
with basic typological variation. But there are plenty of generative<br>
grammarians who do careful, detailed work on very non-SAE languages<br>
and are quite dedicated to being honest to their data while also<br>
trying to stay internally consistent in their theorizing. In the end,<br>
I don't think Martin's dichotomy — between trying to understand<br>
generative grammar and trying to understand languages — is<br>
sustainable, because the best generative theorizing is based on a rich<br>
empirical foundation, and detailed descriptions of individual<br>
languages need to make reference to structural phenomena that we<br>
understand (to the degree that we can say we understand them) thanks<br>
at least in part to work that has come out of the generative<br>
tradition.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Adam<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>Peter Arkadiev, PhD Habil.</div>
<div>Institute of Slavic Studies</div>
<div>Russian Academy of Sciences</div>
<div>Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119334 Moscow</div>
<div>peterarkadiev@yandex.ru</div>
<div>http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>