attractions and distractions

[Andrew Carnie]

Hi All,

I've been trying to keep my big mouth out of this, but Bob's message has
prompted me to reply. I'm an interested outsider, a person who works in
MP, but likes to keep abreast of developments in HPSG. (THere actually are
a surprising number of us on this list by the way -- but I don't claim to
speak for anyone but myself).

I'd like to encourage the HPSG (and LFG) communities to consider the best
way to attract people to your view is not to tell them that they are wrong
and idiots and their theory is crap. All that accomplishes is turning
people off -- you are insulting them, you are insulting their work, so of
course they aren't going to be interested in your arguments and your
framework. (Before, you all scream -- yes, I know there is an irony in
what I say from a historical perspective...).

I'd suggest instead emphasizing at conferences and in
printed work, not the flaws of MP, but the empirical and theoretical
advantages of HPSG/LFG/whatever. For example, one of the reasons I'm
attracted to HPSG is the well-worked out feature geometry. MP lacks a
theory of feature geometry, and what theory it has of feature interaction
isn't very popular amoung many of its adherents. (Checking seems too
archane to me. It seems that a system of feature satisfaction, if you'll
allow me to use derivational language,  like HPSG uses is much more
plausable). So when trying to recruit converts to your approach it seems
much more productive to emphasize the positive aspects of your work, than
the negative aspects of your competitors.

With no offense to Shalom and his colleagues intended, the MP-critical
NLLT article and book did little to advance the cause for precisely
this reason. The valid criticisms in the article were obscured alternately
by incorrect information or by generalizations about social scholarly
behavior that were so nastily phrased that no one in their right might
would assume that they were guilty of the charged offense. Sociologically
speaking the article had precisely the opposite effect of it's intent. It
was so nasty, so biased, and so misinformed, that I think MP-adherents are
*less* likely to take alternative approaches seriously now than they were
before.

In 2002, I published my intro syntax textbook, which is often
mischaracterized as an MP book (it's derivational, but with the exception
of chapter 12, there is nothing particularly MP about it). I decided that
along with my final chapter on MP, I'd include brief summaries of HPSG and
LFG. The response I received from the LFG community was great. Comments
were supportive. This contrasts with the HPSG community heavily, with
the exception of a few individuals --Andreas, Emily, Ivan, Carl and a few
others-- who provided me with extremely helpful feedback and support, the
response from the HPSG community was scathing. I nearly dumped the
HPSG chapter I was so sickened by the hostility.

While we like to provide a unified face to the world, there is a lot
of MP-theorist internal discontent with parts of the approach and in some
cases with the methodologies involved. Just as there are different
views of how HPSG should be pursued. Any good scientist attempts to be
aware of the real problems in their own work, even if they choose to
temporarily ignore them for practical reasons. The MP world doesn't need
HPSG critics, it has its own. What it needs are solutions to those
problems.

So anyway, the moral of my message here is the old adage that you attract
more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think that spending your time
criticizing MP, as Bob suggests, is less productive than promoting HPSG.

Ok, I'll keep my big mouth shut now.

Your local post-modernist hack,

AC