[Lingtyp] Typology: another broken system

[Patrik Austin]

Hello everyone,

I hope you are doing well today. I recently published another article on
syntactic universals, and as before, no reply. Let us look at the contents
of this paper and the related issues.

*1. Introduction* and *2. Universals, the data, and the problem*. This
article is about dominance in the transitive clause relating to Greenberg’s
universal #1, etc. When syntactic typologists write about it, it is
possibly the most important unsolved issue in linguistics. However, when
these scholars read my article, it suddenly becomes unclear whether it is
an interesting topic in the first place. That being said, we tend to hear
next that there is ”no such thing as syntactic typologists”, igniting the
discussion of whether or not they exist. The conclusion might be that they
do *not* exist in the sense suggested in this article (i.e., when
criticized for failures). However, when funding is given, quite a few
experts appear.

*3. Previous research*. A summary shows that syntactic typology is BS, to
put it politely. Quite common names here. This is precisely what social
psychology predicts: academia is a status game, and here, syntactic
typologists are shown to have the job of making unnecessary complications
to a relatively simple issue. There has never been true progress and never
will if it is up to the professional group because their collective task is
to keep the game going as long as possible. When it is played out, they
will focus on another similar game.

Notice especially *Figure 3* (rotate view to right), which shows how not
just syntactic typology but also Generative Grammar is BS, which everyone
of course always knew. But the curious thing is that while these two groups
have created a facade of antagonism, we see quite clearly that they are
actually collaborating by jointly maintaining a false dichotomy
(”functionalism vs formalism”). Here, we see clearly that both are the same
BS with only a vague connection to the scientific study of language.

*Table 1*: Dryer’s excuses. Since he does not reply, I think everyone is
eligible. Please do.

4. *The solution of the transitive distribution*. *4.1 Highlighting: a new
typological generalization*. Table 2: a scorecard that correctly predicts
the transitive distribution. When discussing this table, the standard
reaction is that there is nothing but a scorecard in the whole paper,
taking less than half a page in a 30-page article, which seems impossible.
To outsiders, though, the question is: is it true? Does this scorecard do
what it promises, i.e., mathematically generates the correct pattern?
Interestingly, linguists seem totally incapable of answering such a simple
question and would rather answer any other question, which they are great
experts in.

*4.2 A theory for the generalization*, *4.3, 4.4.* The deeper-level
explanation is what it says in this section. So, what does it say? I am
told there is only a scorecard and no link to scientific theory and
empirical research. Is that so?

*5. Conclusion*. I suppose the conclusion is the prediction: linguistics is
a farce, a status game, a broken system, and people doing it are hostages
to the system with little will of their own. It is a sad, pathetic world,
and no one can fix it because all participants are economically and
emotionally tied to it. If this is not true, then, I will soon see many
coherent replies to my article that explain which precise error has been
made in the paper or else why it will not be cited even though it provides
the seemingly long-awaited solution to this classic problem that so many
professionals have very special knowledge of but cannot explain in a way
comprehensible to the outside world.

Thanks, and trust yourself – you can do it!

Reply.

Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250325/fe6e47ec/attachment.htm>