three final replies

[Gregory Ward]

david pesetsky writes:

> I have been in countless discussions about whether some phenomenon is
> properly attributable to a discourse factor, to a property of
> sentence-internal syntax, or some mixture of these.  On such matters,
> people's opinions should, can, and do change in response to reasoned
> discussion and argument.  That's what I meant.

but, alas, they often don't. case in point: in a recent language paper
(vol 71:722-42), betty birner and i present evidence for a phenomenon
being motivated by discourse rather than by 'sentence-internal syntax'.
the phenomenon in question is the so-called definiteness effect in
postverbal position in english existential there-sentences. however, one
still sees many references to such an effect (without discussion or
justification) in the formal syntax literature. now it is of course
possible that one could come up with a strictly syntactic account of the
(indisputable) occurrence of definite postverbal NPs in this
construction (although i doubt it :-) ), but until that time,
unqualified references to a syntactically-motivated 'definiteness
effect' should simply disappear. but that hasn't happened. in fact, the
discourse accounts (and there are several) often aren't even cited (not
even in a dismissive "but cf." kind of way).  this is the state of
affairs that is so frustrating to those of us, inter alia, who believe
in the existence of both discourse and syntax, and who try to listen to
what practitioners of both both have to say.

gregory
--

Gregory Ward
Department of Linguistics
Northwestern University
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston IL  60208-4090

e-mail: gw at nwu.edu
tel: 847-491-8055
fax: 847-491-3770
www: http://www.ling.nwu.edu/~ward




>
> *****************
>
> ON THE NOTION "INTERESTING":
>
> I wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> To which John Myhill replied:
>
> > I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately that is not the tone the
> > discussion (such as it is) has taken. To take the most blatant example,
> > Chomsky's favorite 'defense' of whatever approach he feels like pursuing a=
> t
> > the moment has always been that it is 'interesting,' (your specious
> > proposition #3), [...]
>
>                 [Chomsky quotes omitted]
> >
> > Such examples could be multiplied many times over [...]
> > This is particularly significant, and
> > worrying, because the great majority of Chomsky's followers appear to be
> > similarly basing their choice of approach on what Chomsky finds
> > 'interesting' as well, to judge by the general lack of serious effort to
> > give more convincing arguments for this approach. I assume that you (David=
> )
> > yourself are thinking something similar about functionalists, so this
> > appears to be a general property of the field.
>
> I think it's a general property of *people*.
>
> If we're given the opportunity, we do what we find most interesting.  Then
> we act as though "interesting" is an argument for something.
>
> Sure Chomsky's guilty of this. Who isn't?  It's even argued that the false
> argument serves the useful purpose of focusing research, though that, of
> course, is a two-edged sword (to mix a metaphor).
>
> The trick is to learn how to see where "interesting" is being used as an
> argument, discard that non-argument without rancor, and examine what's left
> in a serious fashion.
>
> On a related issue, do consider the possibility that at least some of the
> people you call "Chomsky's followers" look like followers because they
> share (some of) his interests -- rather than sharing his interests because
> they're followers.
>
> *****************
> =46INALLY:
>
> Jon Aske wrote (two days ago, sorry for the delay):
>
> > David, I'm sorry if I put words into your mouth.  I was going by my
> > interpretation (corroborated by many others) of what people in your
> > school, not necessarily you yourself, have been saying for the last few
> > decades, at least until the last time I checked.
>
> Thanks for your remarks.  It's an easy but unproductive shortcut to
> criticize X for what Y says Z (who went to graduate school with X) thinks.
> But it's usually also unfair.
>
> The issue at hand was a certain characterization of work on functional
> categories.  I'd like to address that further, but I don't think I can do
> that here and now.  A book currently being written by Guglielmo Cinque may
> soon be the best place to look for good work (in my linguistic neck of the
> woods) on the topic.  But that's not fully written yet.  He cites lots of
> the typology literature, by the way.
>
> > Perhaps my
> > interpretation was erroneous.  If so, I am quite willing to stand
> > corrected.  I think that that is what this discussion (I don't dare call
> > it "dispute") is all about.  I feel, and I'm sure many others do too,
> > that we need a lot more communication in our field.  It may turn out
> > that we agree on more things than we ever thought we did.
>
> I suspect the opposite.  I suspect that we *disagree* on more things than
> we ever thought we did.  But what's wrong with that, so long as discussions
> address the real disagreements -- not specious ones rooted in primeval
> animosities or based on logic like proposition 7 of my previous message?
> (Anyone look it up?)
>
>
> Thanks for the discussion,
> David Pesetsky
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> 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
>