attractions and distractions

[Borsley R D]

I really don't understand this. Most of us do think minimalism is wrong in
lots of ways and it would be very odd to keep this a secret. Equally it
would be odd to offer an HPSG analysis and to say that one is not
suggesting that it is any better than any other analysis. This is not a
matter of saying anyone is an idiot. And to argue that someone is wrong
about something is not to insult them. When Chomsky argues that he was
wrong in the 80's to assume that government is a necessary notion he is
not insulting his former self. Equally when Sag and Levine argue that
movement approaches to unbounded dependencies are unsatisfactory they are
not insulting anybody. One might argue, however, that it is insulting to
systematically ignore work outside one's favoured framework in the way
that many minimalists do.

Bob

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Andrew Carnie wrote:

> 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
>
>

--
Prof. Robert D. Borsley
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
COLCHESTER CO4 3SQ, UK

rborsley at essex.ac.uk
tel: +44 1206 873762
fax: +44 1206 872198
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~rborsley