What is this dispute anyway?

[Jon Aske]

Well, I think that we can improve on David's diagnosis.

I would say that the general belief among functionalists is that
formalists adhere to proposition #3, namely that "...everything really
interesting is in area X", as opposed to the proposition "...everything
really interesting is in areas A-Z."  Most functionalists probably also
believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that many formalists believe in a
modified version of proposition #4 ("...area X contains *LESS* stuff
than any other area, and therefore is better.").  Same thing about
proposition #5 (see original quote below).  (I'll skip proposition #6,
although things could be said about that too.  Unfortunately personal
attacks have come from both sides at different times).

Perhaps we're just wrong.  If so, there is a very big misunderstanding
here and we definitely should get it corrected as soon as possible.
That's what we're here for.

Best, Jon

David Pesetsky wrote:
...
>         1. "I think the explanation lies (partly, entirely) in area X."
>
>         2. "As an expert in area X, I can best contribute to research by
>          investigating possible explanations in area X."
>
> to research-stifling propositions like "I think the explanation lies in
> area X because..."
>
>         3. "...everything really interesting is in area X."
>
>         4. "...area X contains more stuff than any other area, and therefore
>         is better."
>
>         5. "...area X is the essence of language."
>
>         6. "...no one would ever work outside area X unless they
>         had a major character flaw."
>
>         7. "... [New Yorker (latest issue, 1/13/97),
>         cartoon on p.52]."
>
> But anyone with a will can separate these distractions from our real business.
>
> I agree that there is no general, falsifiable "autonomy thesis" that
> separates us.  But, at the same time, we're not just floating in a sea of
> nonsense either.  Our hunches and prejudices (though they are not in
> themselves testable hypotheses) can and do suggest competing explanations
> for actual facts. Discussions of these alternatives can and do change minds
> (mine, for instance). Myhill writes:
>
> > Shouldn't we be a little bit concerned that people with
> > different leanings interpret the same data in opposite ways according to
> > what they regard as their view of language.[...]
>
> I say "No".  I think this situation is quite fine.  The problems arise
> *after* we've offered our varying interpretations of the data. Do we defend
> our interpretation with specious propositions like 3-7?  Or do we try to
> discover the truth?  Since every now and then the second path is taken, I
> have more hope for the field than Myhill does.
>
>         -David Pesetsky
>
> P.S. I'll try not to bother this list any more.
>
> *************************************************************************
> Prof. David Pesetsky, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy
> 20D-219 MIT,  Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
> (617) 253-0957 office           (617) 253-5017 fax
> http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky.html

--
Jon Aske
jaske at abacus.bates.edu
http://www.bates.edu/~jaske/
--
Nolako egurra, halako sua
"Such as is the wood, thus will be the fire."