LINGUIST List 12.1263

Mon May 7 2001

Disc: Moss Review/Verbal Complexes

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Michael Moss, Re: 12.1234, Disc: Moss Review/Verbal Complexes

Message 1: Re: 12.1234, Disc: Moss Review/Verbal Complexes

This is a short response to Peter Hallman's recent contribution to the
discussion surrounding my review of Koopman and Szabolcsi's book: Verbal
Complexes. In the review, I criticized the form in which the information was
presented in that book. I have nothing against new ideas, or incorporating
ideas from other work in a given analysis. I do feel, however, that
scientific and academic publications should strive to be clear, complete and
self-explanatory. This discussion has essentially boiled down to two points:

1. The review did not include information about Koopman and Szabolcsi's
analysis involving Phrasal Movement as opposed to traditional head moment.

2. Whether or not '+' phrases, LPs and Stacking Positions were well defined
and defended in the work.

Concerning the first point. I agree with Peter Hallman when he says:

> But it is not the task of a reviewer to read a book until he or she
> finds a premise with which he or she disagrees, and then abandon the
> task of reviewing the book because the mechanisms on which it is based
> are in his or her mind unjustified.

I should have included more information about the analysis and about the
significance of the approach with regards to Universal Grammar. Again, it is
impressive that an analysis can account for linguistic phenomena in two very
different language groups using the same structural representation and the
same set of movement or derivation techniques. I agree that the book is
significant in this respect and deserves much credit for the research done
and the findings presented.

However, and this is what I meant in the original review, the form in which
the data and argumentation is presented in this book makes it difficult to
analyze and judge the claims being made.

Again, I agree with Peter Hallman when he says:

> I have not previously encountered the notion that there is something
> unusual about referring to other works that spell out the empirical
> and/or theoretical justifications of 'borrowed' technology. All work in
> linguistics and other sciences is built on the work that preceded it,
> and familiarity with the relevant literature on a given topic is usually
> assumed.

I am not saying that it is unusual to refer to works where a phenomenon is
explained in more detail is unusual. It is general practice, however, to
outline the argumentation underlying a new technology or analysis,
especially when it is crucial to the analysis being presented. I also feel
that taking the time to explain an analysis in straightforward language,
while making the book slightly longer, does not detract from the book's
value. The absence of a clear explanation, however, makes a book difficult
to understand and evaluate.

Regarding '+' projections, LPs and Stacking Positions in particular, I would
like to thank both �ystein Nilsen and Peter Hallman, for making these ideas
clearer. Their explanations of these ideas as presented in this discussion
were clear, insightful and very helpful. It is exactly this type of
information that I feel is missing in the book itself. If these phenomena
had been presented in the book as clearly as they were by these contributors
in their responses to my review, I am sure that my original reading of the
book would have been much more fulfilling.

Best regards,
Michael Moss