[lit-ideas] Re: Gossip from the Forest
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 11:04:42 +0900
How is this question to be decided? Is natural language grammar the
servant of
the conceptual/logical or is the converse the case?
Neither. The conceptual/logical is an abstraction from natural language
grammar, a Protestant rebellion against what are perceived as the
corruptions of whatever natural language the philosopher is trying to
overcome.
I recall a talk given by an historical linguist at Berkeley, the year was
1972, the topic was Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar. In what I took
to be a brilliant metaphor, the historical linguist compared Chomsky's
account of language to a brand new erector set found under a Christmas
tree. Natural language, he said, is more like an erector set found in the
attic years later. Some parts and screws are missing. Others have been
replaced with hairpins, bits of duct tape or bubble gum. To expect the
logic of the latter to be as clear and simple as the former is foolish.
Does this mean that analyses of syntactic structures have nothing to teach
us? No. We just need to remember the maxim articulated by the
statistician George
E. P. Box. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box> "essentially,
all models are wrong, but some are useful." In this case, the syntactic
analysis becomes the background against which history becomes visible.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
