Scientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntax

Abstract

In this paper, I address the issue of scientific modelling in contemporary linguistics, focusing on the generative tradition. In so doing, I identify two common varieties of linguistic idealisation, which I call determination and isolation respectively. I argue that these distinct types of idealisation can both be described within the remit of Weisberg's (J Philos 104 (12) erative tradition, along scientific modelling lines. Thus, I offer a lens through which to appreciate the scientific contribution of generative grammar, amid an increased resistance to some of its core theoretical posits, in terms of a brand of structural realism in the philosophy of science and specifically scientific modelling.

Optimality Theory Paradigm in the Formation of Active Participles Arabic Quadrilateral Verbs

“…Teori Optimality merupakan kerangka kerja linguistik yang pertama kali diperkenalkan oleh Ron Kaplan dan Paul Smolensky pada awal 1990-an (El-Ebiary & Issa, 2020Kaplan, 1993). Teori ini digunakan untuk menjelaskan fenomena linguistik dengan asumsi bahwa bahasa memiliki prinsip-prinsip optimasi yang mengatur bagaimana bunyi, morfologi, dan sintaksis dalam bahasa dikombinasikan secara optimal (Nefdt, 2016). Sebagai contoh, McCarthy dan Prince menguraikan OT sebagai kerangka kerja yang memodelkan proses pemilihan alternatif yang dihasilkan oleh berbagai konstruksi linguistic .…”

Language in and out of society: Converging critiques of the Labovian paradigm

“…Linguistics, it seems, has become part of the same trend. Nefdt (2016aNefdt ( , 2016b, for instance, has pondered continuity in generativism. He argues that even though we cannot infer ontological continuity from the history of generativism (minimalism has arguably little to do with the generativism of the 1960s), we can find continuity in its scientific modelling practice of idealisation.…”

“…The goal of this paper is to take these descriptions one step further and ask what they can tell us about progress in their respective fields. While Nefdt (2016aNefdt ( , 2016bNefdt ( , 2019 lays out modelling continuity in generativism quite convincingly, he is hesitant in passing judgement on the ontological breaches he discusses (which I describe in some detail in chapter 4.3 below). 27 If we want to ponder scientific progress, however, we need something to measure these ontological breaches against; something by virtue of which we are then able to say: "Theory A is better than Theory B, and hence the ontological breach", without ignoring the fact that what counts as better, truer or more real is, in part, theory-dependent (Kuhn, 1970(Kuhn, [1962).…”

“…In ways which will be laid out in the following two chapters, scientific realism has the potential to offer such a measure, but it comes with certain challenges. If these challenges are dealt with adequately, scientific realism can provide us with a theoretical toolkit that lets us argue, in the context of Nefdt (2016aNefdt ( , 2016b, that the dynamic turn in syntax did away with key assumptions of the traditional generativist framework because it was able to predict pronoun reference more successfully; or because treating the sentence as the pivotal studied subject was an unjustified restriction. In the context of Woschitz (2019), it enables us to state that sociolinguists have started problematising the autonomy of linguistics because they feel it is merely a heuristic stand-in for social processes at work.…”

Infinity and the foundations of linguistics

“…The first grade of involvement proposes a quasi-instrumentalist picture of linguistic methodology (although this is not necessarily the case, a structural realist interpretation of linguistic modelling might also be feasible, see Nefdt (2016b)). On this account, grammars are indeed scientific in nature (à la Chomsky) but more akin to models than theories (contra Chomsky).…”