attractions and distractions

[Ivan A. Sag]

Hi Andrew (and everyone else)

> 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.

Whew... I'd hate to see what you wrote when you DID intend to offend
someone...  It's funny that you should be so harsh about this work. I was
talking with David Pesetsky in May about the Johnson-Lappin book and why there
had been no published response to it. What he said was that (almost all?) the
objections they raised in the book were the very issues that had already been
recognized as critical problems for MP and which people were already working
on. So in David P's view, if I understood him right, the issues raised didn't
provide grounds for a rejection of MP at all. David P. also suggested that
this mismatch of assumptions played a role in why no one took on their book
pointedly. All right. Presumably, David J and Shalom would disagree with this
assessment, but let's not go there right now.

You may be right that MP-adherents are less likely to take alternative
approaches seriously now than they were before, but your assessment of the
research seems at odds with David P's (I'm sure he'll correct me if I have
misrepresented him). In particular, your charge that their work was `so nasty,
so biased, and so misinformed' seems at odds with what I took David P to be
saying.

I'd like to think that I've misunderstood something.  Could it be that you're
really just talking about the NLLT Topic-Comment exchange, rather than the
Johnson-Lappin book? Even if that's so, bear in mind that it's one thing to
say that the NLLT pieces by Shalom, Bob L, and David J were reacted to
negatively or were perceived as nasty, biased and misinformed; it's quite
another to assert in a post to this list that you believe they were nasty,
biased, and misinformed.... These are accusations that someone might
ask you to defend in points of detail (or else retract....). Enough said.

All Best,
Ivan