[Lingtyp] The (ab)use of the term "theory" in (generative) linguistics
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Wed Feb 12 10:32:31 UTC 2020
There is also the use of "theoretical" as a would-be antonym to
"descriptive" — with the latter often preceded by words such as "just"
or "merely", in order to reinforce the assumption that being
"theoretical" is somehow a higher or more worthy endeavor than being
"descriptive". Since it is clearly impossible to describe any aspect of
language without adopting some kind of theory (e.g. with regard to such
basic stuff as what constitutes a segment when you're transcribing a
text), the presupposition that theory stands in opposition to
description is both confusing, as suggested by Martin, but also
pernicious — the latter because it expresses a totalitarian attitude
whereby if you're not adopting the "right" theory, you're not adopting
any theory whatsoever.
On 11/02/2020 12:38, Eitan Grossman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In oral comments and reviews, I encounter two main uses of "theory"
> and "theoretical." One is simply an autonym of generative linguists,
> as in "John only hangs out with theoretical linguists" or "Mary does
> great fieldwork but we want to hire a theoretician."
> You might also encounter something along the lines of "This abstract
> makes some very interesting observations but does not reference the
> theoretical literature, and it is unclear how it relates to theory."
>
> The other use is something like "having a point (beyond describing
> facts)" or "referencing general linguistic literature."
>
> But in my experience, the first is by far the most common.
>
> Eitan
>
>
> בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 בפבר׳ 2020, 12:16, מאת paolo Ramat
> <paolo.ramat at unipv.it <mailto:paolo.ramat at unipv.it>>:
>
> Hi everyone,
> Martin H. has written that <<there is confusion also about ]...]
> the relation between "typology" and "theory">>. I fully agree. But
> Martin says further that <<the term "theory" can be used as a
> count noun , or as a mass noun ("linguistic theory", "grammatical
> theory">>. This sounds rather strange: I had always thought that
> mass nouns are nouns such as 'sugar', 'blood', 'sand' etc. Can we
> consider abstract nouns like 'philosophy','theology' or even
> 'democracy' as mass nouns? Let alone by adding an adjective as in
> "linguistic/grammatic theory". This is not the habitual use of the
> term and sounds confusing.
> Paolo
>
>
> prof. dr. Paolo Ramat
> Università di Pavia (retired)
> Istituto Universitario Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia) (retired)
> Accademia dei Lincei, Socio corrispondente
> 'Academia Europaea'
> 'Societas Linguistica Europaea', Honorary Member
> piazzetta Arduino 11 - I 27100 Pavia
> ##39 0382 27027
> 347 044 98 44
>
>
> Il giorno mar 11 feb 2020 alle ore 10:47 Haspelmath, Martin
> <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>> ha scritto:
>
> I would talk about "confusion", not about "abuse", because
> there are many different kinds of linguistic theories.
> Moreover, the term "theory" can be used as a count noun (as in
> the last sentence), or as a mass noun ("linguistic theory",
> "grammatical theory"). Linguists rarely reflect on kinds of
> theories, or on kinds of senses of the word "theory", and the
> papers that Hartmut mentioned have not become well-known. So
> there is a lot of confusion.
>
> In my 2010 paper on "Framework-free grammatical theory"
> (https://zenodo.org/record/814947), I distinguished four
> senses of "theory".
>
> But there is confusion also about the relation between
> "typology" and "theory": Quite a few people have contrasted
> them as if they were different ways of doing linguistics, or
> different parts of research, e.g.
>
> Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. /Non-verbal predication: Theory,
> typology, diachrony/. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
> Polinsky, Maria & Robert Kluender. 2007. Linguistic typology
> and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. /Linguistic
> Typology/ 11(1). 273–283.
> Van Langendonck, Willy. 2008. /Theory and typology of proper
> names/. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
>
> But on the other hand, it is clear that "atheoretical
> typology" is impossible, so this usage is confusing. See this
> recent blogpost, which proposes an alternative:
> https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1915
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 11.02.20 10:18, Hartmut Haberland wrote:
>>
>> Jün-Tin Wang 1973. ”On the representation of generative
>> grammars as first-order theories.” In: Radu J. Bogdan and
>> Ilkka Niinilouto eds. /Logic,/ /Language and Probability/.
>> Dordrecht: Reidel, 302-316
>>
>> Hans-Heinrich Lieb 1974. "Grammars as theories: The case for
>> axiomatic grammar (Part I)". /Theoretical Linguistics/ 1: 39-115.
>>
>> Hans-Heinrich Lieb 1976. "Grammars as theories: The case for
>> axiomatic grammar (Part II)". /Theoretical Linguistics/3: 1-98.
>>
>> *Fra:*Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk> <mailto:hartmut at ruc.dk>
>> *Sendt:* 11. februar 2020 09:33
>> *Til:* TALLMAN Adam <Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr>
>> <mailto:Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr>
>> *Emne:* Re: [Lingtyp] The (ab)use of the term "theory" in
>> (generative) linguistics
>>
>> Hans-Heinrich Lieb has written extensively about this in the
>> 70s, also Jün-tin Wang. Hartmut
>>
>>
>> Den 11. feb. 2020 kl. 07.12 skrev TALLMAN Adam
>> <Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr <mailto:Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr>>:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Does anyone have any sources that discuss the abuse of
>> the term "theory" in generative linguistics (or in
>> linguistics generally)? I figure that a paper like this
>> must exist given the deeply insightful comments that I
>> have received by some reviewers.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> Adam James Ross Tallman (PhD, UT Austin)
>>
>> ELDP-SOAS -- Postdoctorant
>> CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)
>> Bureau 207, 14 av. Berthelot, Lyon (07)
>>
>> Numero celular en bolivia: +59163116867
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10
> D-07745 Jena
> &
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
--
David Gil
Senior Scientist (Associate)
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-556825895
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200212/82c54900/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list