hocus-pocus, God's truth

[Esa Itkonen]

This terminological distinction which was coined (and accepted) by the US
structuralists of the classical era is valid even under somewhat changed
circumstances. The 'hocus-pocus' view (without any negative connotations)
has been and is (and will be) represented by those who just want to present
the facts of a given language (N.B. seldom the facts of several languages
at the same time) in a maximally simple and general way. Most of the time,
this way has or is meant to have NO psychological or biological reality.
Example: Panini, whom many (including myself) consider the best grammarian
ever, did not care about psychological reality. (This was agreed on - LA,
June 1982 - by Paul Kiparsky and myself, of whom the former knows Panini
better than the latter.) The 'God's truth' position (without any either
positive or negative connotations) is represented by those who do not
merely wish to capture the psychological and/or biological reality, but who
actually succeed in doing so, at least to some extent. Both approaches are
equally legitimate, as long as one knows what one is doing (which is seldom
the case).

Rob Freeman's case for ANALOGY is most welcome, given that even
functionalists and cognitivists still seem to some extent intimidated by
Chomsky's long-standing hostility towards analogy; but this will certainly
change; maybe it has changed already.

Esa Itkonen