3

The Generative approach on syntax is very elegant, useful and very complete as far as I can see. I think that, as all theories have, there must have some critics on it. But I don't know where to find counter examples. What are the theories that refute (or try to do so) the theories of generative syntax?

Also, if someone know about the same thing but on generative phonology, I would like to learn about it too.

Ergative Man
  • 1,436
  • 1
  • 8
  • 22
  • 1
    The main criticism I've heard is against universal grammar, because it's an unexplained source of innate knowledge whereas other aspects of human behaviour seem to be acquired as infants and children. – curiousdannii Apr 06 '20 at 01:09
  • Modern versions of Generative Grammar on the syntax end assume strict binarity of branching. The notion that all syntactic structure involves binary branching is not supported empirically. The issue is discussed here: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/6826/what-empirical-evidence-can-be-produced-that-all-syntactic-structure-is-binary-b – Tim Osborne Apr 06 '20 at 04:10
  • Another problem with modern version of Generative Grammar is the assumption that syntactic structures are built bottom up. There is no empirical evidence for this assumption. What CAN be shown, in contrast, is that syntactic structures are produced and processed in an online fashion, from earlier to later in the flow of speech (i.e. left to write in languages that are written from left to right). – Tim Osborne Apr 06 '20 at 04:15
  • 1
    There are two lines of criticism: 1) generative syntax isn't cognitively adequate, 2) generative syntax doesn't model the syntax of natural languages well. As for the former, none of the current mainstream theories is cognitively adequate. On the other hand, generative syntax models fairly well the structure of natural languages, but it's not complete — it doesn't account (at least not sensibly) for phenomena such as agreement, long-distance dependencies etc. I'd recommend reading about constraint-based theories, which literature addresses some of these shortcomings of GG. – Atamiri Apr 06 '20 at 09:06

1 Answers1

5

The best argument I've encountered against generative syntax is that made in C.F. Hockett's State of the Art. Personally, I don't subscribe to it, but you may find it persuasive. Hockett compares the game of professional baseball with the similar pick-up game played on vacant lots or in parks by young people -- "sandlot baseball". The professional game is fully codified, with clear and explicit rules, while the rules for sandlot baseball are ad hoc and may be decided by the participants, for convenience, and depend on who happens to be playing.

Generative grammar is like the pro game, while the true nature of language is more like the casual and constantly varying sandlot ball.

Greg Lee
  • 12,466
  • 1
  • 18
  • 32
  • 1
    surely the players still obey natural laws. Though they seem to defy gravity, they don't get the ball going by changing the rules – vectory Apr 06 '20 at 15:04
  • 1
    @vectory Yes, the players still obey natural laws. To make use of that, we need to know what those natural laws are. It would obviously be circular to assume that the natural laws were the rule book for pro baseball, then to conclude that the sandlot players are also controlled by the strict determinate rules for the pro game. Unfortunately, – Greg Lee Apr 06 '20 at 23:39
  • the players do not need to know the laws, is my point. PS: Circular reasoning is not necessarily a fallacy, only if the initial premisses is fallacious, that need not be part of the circle, which is why the circle might be vicious – vectory Apr 06 '20 at 23:41
  • ... in the comparable case in grammar, in the latter part of Aspects, this is exactly what Chomsky does, when he discounts speakers' rejection of some complicated constructions as "performance" errors. When judging the evidence, speakers are allowed to use "pencil and paper" analysis (presumably using the competence theory as a guide). – Greg Lee Apr 06 '20 at 23:41
  • @vectory, Oh, and circular reasoning is necessarily a fallacy, regardless of whether the premises are true. – Greg Lee Apr 07 '20 at 03:53
  • 1
    You are wrong. Wikipedia (List of Fallacies) says it's not a fallacy, and it makes sense. There might be a fallacy in a given circular argument, sure, but, for example, any tautology is circular. An axiomatic rule may count as tautology, though we don't know if it is really true, and some people might reject them. To stick with the metaphor, being able to run quick is not prerequisite for having a game of ball. – vectory Apr 07 '20 at 15:23
  • 1
    @vectory You need to learn some logic. A "tautology" is not an argument -- it's a statement which is necessarily true. – Greg Lee Apr 07 '20 at 23:15
  • @vectory I looked at the list of fallacies you refer to. Circular reasoning is there -- look under "improper premise", The classic name for it is petitio principii. – Greg Lee Apr 07 '20 at 23:31
  • 1
    This is rather off-topic, but for completeness sake, maybe read a step further where it says not a fallacy (paraphrased from memory); quote: "Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade." – vectory Apr 08 '20 at 15:39
  • So, if you ignore warning signs and drive into rotary traffic that has only one-way streets leading into it, but none out, then perhaps ignoring the warning sign was the problem; whereas driving around the rotary may be legal, in any case. Circular reasoning is when you ask, how did we even get here? – vectory Apr 08 '20 at 15:49
  • A very real example is legal (hopefully that also translates to formal natural language): Laws are often justified by what people want, common expectations(1 in general statements about ownership; 2 die Amtssprache ist Deutsch). Meanwhile. people might rest on assumptions what is lawful and just (1 I have papers for a car; 2 the singular das Möbel is in the Duden). This is a feedback loop running for many centuries (better examples? Self defense, defamation?). Common wisdom knows judges wont be fooled by clever interpretation of statutes, if they have different ideas. That's basicly ... – vectory Apr 08 '20 at 16:06
  • ... equivalent to judging someone a smartass using grammar too complicated for their own good, look here, we just don't do that, keep it simple stupid. Pro-Sports also sometimes like to bend the rules; there are courts resolving sport disputes and there is unhealthy amounts of doping in baseball, sometimes rather creative. No sane person would dope for a pick-up game (cheating in e-sports is a different thing, testing the cheats I suppose. So what? – vectory Apr 08 '20 at 16:07
  • (By the way: Chomsky can be a smartass if he wants to, I'm sure you agree). It should be a lot more interesting, when it comes to inert features of speech, to consider simple structures and acquisition, and how rules of communication are discovered in the first place (I'd like to elaborate on that, but it could only be off-topic, because generative syntax is not my business. It does sound like it meanrmt the opposite of innert, anyhow). PS: inert is the wrong word here, oops. – vectory Apr 08 '20 at 16:14