Phonology

[Noel Rude]

Folks!

        Have been away from the lit for quite a spell now and can't say I know
anything about acronymic linguistics (nor much of anything, for that
matter).

        What bothers me about letting linguistics degenerate into phonology is
that this is what happens when we insist on grounding everything in
neurology and physiology.  Such was the error of the Bloomfeldians.
Chomsky was right in so far as he argued for studying Language--syntax
and semantics and universals and all--apart from any purely mechanistic
theory (behaviorist or otherwise--is that what his "innateness" was
meant to do?).  We can still study Language and keep it
empirical--grounding it in legitimate data (texts, etc.)--even if the
Chomskians have tended not to do this.  We can operate within a purely
communicative theory of language.  And yes as far as possible our
functional explanations should be grounded in reality (biology,
psychology, pragmatics).  But we might remember that no one as yet has
succeeded in defining information in purely physical terms (grams,
centimeters, volts, etc.).  If we don't want to deal with the
logical/informational side of language then it will have to fall to the
philosophers and mathematicians to do so.

        Of course I know most of us still believe in syntax and semantics.  I
just thought it would be good to remind ourselves that Chomsky did help
in delivering us from the "biological extremism" of mid century America.

        Rude again