paradigms

[Daniel L. Everett]

Elizabeth,

The reason it is too difficult to discuss on the listserv is that there
are no facts without consensus and the establishment of facts as
supporting this or that requires detailed discussion. It is, to use a
Noam analogy, like trying to talk about anything meaningful on TV
between commercials. Unless everyone agrees with you, your points take
too much time to develop because they go against the grain. And this is
not the list to discuss general morphology.

But I did send you the draft I mentioned earlier. You can at least look
at the facts if you have the time or inclination.

A recent paper by Greg Stump and Farrell Ackerman (to appear in a
volume edited by Louisa Sadler and Andrew Spencer) makes the point
quite forcefully. But of course in many theories of morphology, the
paradigm is causally implicated in many analyses.

To say that a statement to the effect that "the correct theory won't
use paradigms" is not metatheoretical is quite strange. A statement
about facts is theoretical (one might say 'empirical' but I don't
believe that that word does a lot of work). A statement about theories
is metatheoretical.

Saying that the 'correct theory' has no paradigms is somewhat
reminiscent of  Paul Postal's 'The best theory' article, in which a
particular approach of the early 70s was argued to be in principle the
best. Best to watch your wallet and cover your beer with your other
hand when that kind of talk starts.

-- Dan





------------------------------------------

Daniel L. Everett
Professor of Phonetics & Phonology
Postgraduate Programme Director
Department of Linguistics
The University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, UK M13 9PL
http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/de
Fax: 44-161-275-3187
Office: 44-161-275-3158