Myth of G

[H Stephen Straight]

> I'm more of a hocus-pocus linguist; I tend to think
>grammars (in the plural) are convenient devices for us to catalog observed
>regularities. Would this vision of grammars still make them objectionable?

My previous postings have voiced no objection to the use of grammars as
descriptive devices.  The Myth of G, as I've called it, lies not in the writing
of grammars per se but rather in the claim that language users could have any
use for them other than as interesting cultural artifacts in which linguists
have cataloged and otherwise systematically described language objects in ways
that correspond to people's judgments regarding the well-formedness, utility,
similarity, contrast, and interrelatedness of various sample objects (whether
recorded or invented).  In particular, the Myth consists of the claim that to
the extent that the description provided by a grammar is, as the saying used to
go, "descriptively adequate" it is ipso facto a candidate for promotion as an
"explanatorily adequate" account of a vital part of the mental/neural apparatus
that actually underlies language comprehension, production, and acquisition.
I'll admit that my personal preference is to do linguistics in such a way as to
in fact arrive at such an explanatorily adequate account, which is why I feel
abused when colleagues persist in pretending that grammars contribute to this
goal.  Myths often obstruct real understanding, and the Myth of G has
obstructed explanatorily satisfying linguistics for too long.

                Best.           'Bye.           Steve

 H Stephen Straight -- Anthro, Ling, & Langs Across the Curric (LxC)
 Office: 607.777.2824 - Home: 607.723.0157 - Fax: 607.777.2889/.2477
 Spring 1999 Ofc Hrs, Sci 1 Rm 220: T 2-4, W 2-3:30 & by appointment