GG and change

[Robert R. Ratcliffe]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I am grateful to Isidore Dyen and Benji Wald for their responses to my
recent posting on Generative Grammar and language change. Unfortunately,
both of them seemed to be more or less in agreement with me. I was
hoping to hear from someone more sympathetic to the GG program, who
could perhaps offer a different perspective on the apparent
contradictions  I pointed out.  I hope to come back at some point to
Benji's interesting point about the different epistemological bases of
synchronic and diachronic linguistics, but in the meantime let me try to
broaden my original query.
 
    The point I want to raise is this: Historically, there has always
been a link between historical linguistics and formal synchronic
analysis. The latter is a necessary basis for the former. And in the
nineteenth century, at least, the recognition that better tools and
models were necessary for historical research provided impetus for the
development of new fields of synchronic research like phonetics and
dialectology.  But if one takes seriously the generative claim that the
goal of formal linguistic analysis is the discovery of an innate,
biologically determined language faculty, then you sever the link
between historical and formal linguistics.
 
    No one, I think,  would wish to claim that language change is due to
genetic mutation or change in human biology.  The language faculty has,
presumably (along with the rest of human biology), remained constant
over the 10,000 years or so that historical linguists normally deal
with.  Therefore, there is no reason to expect that a theory of the
language faculty (the ostensible goal of GG research) could be applied
to explain language change.  Hence the whole idea of a generative
research program in historical linguistics seems fundamentally misguided
from the outset.  Hence it's not surprising to find that the work which
has been done is full of logical contradictions and inconsistencies,
such as I pointed out in my last posting. (Of course I was referring
mostly to the older Kiparsky-King work of the 60's and 70's.  I am not
up to date on newer work, within OT or principles and parameters.  I
find it hard to read.  Since I have convinced myself that it's based on
false premises, it's like trying to read a theological treatise of a
religion you don't believe in.)   Anyway, I know there is research
ongoing in GG and change, and I wonder how those involved in it
reconcile these contradictions.
 
 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert R. Ratcliffe
Senior Lecturer, Arabic and Linguistics,
Dept. of Linguistics and Information Science
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Nishigahara 4-51-21, Kita-ku
Tokyo 114 Japan