Adam's message

[Carl Pollard]

Hi Bob,

>
Thanks to Adam for bring that particular piece of obtuseness to our
attentions. It might be noted, in connection with Neil Smith's
aside, that Chomsky Himself has provided the following
definition:

    a *generative grammar* (that is, an explicit grammar that makes no
    appeal to the reader's `faculte de langage' but rather attempts to
    incorporate the mechanisms of this faculty) is a system of rules
    that relate signals to semantic interpretations of these signals.

(TOPICS IN THE THEORY OF GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, 12.) Note also from the
preface to LSLT:


    a grammar constructed in accord with the principles postulated in
    such a theory [of generative grammar] gives an explicit
    characterization of a language and its structure---and within the
    broader semiotic theory envisioned but not developed here, an
    explicit characterization as well of the meaning and reference of
    expressions and conditions of appropriate use.
>>

Hmmm. By the latter definition, neither current Chomskyian syntax
nor current HPSG-ish practice counts as generative grammar, does
it? (But admittedly I have not yet seen Manfred Sailer's dissertation
draft or Jonathan Ginzburg's most recent revisions to the
Ginzburg-Sag work in progress. Maybe the new millenium will
finally usher in a generative grammar worthy of the name?

Carl

>
It does all sorts of good when one can avoid elementary category
errors, eh? It would be interesting to ask why Smith thinks that his
private interpretation of the notion `generative' is of interest to
the field at large, given that the founder of generative grammar did
not make derivations part of the definition, as Smith apparently does;
but unfortunately Smith isn't alone in giving voice to this particular bit of
sectarian tripe; if you can stomach it, take a look at
Piatelli-Palmerini's  preface to Uriagareka's unspeakable RHYME AND
REASON for more of the same.

Bob
>>