Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
There is another aspect to this: since 1957 or so a lot of people seem to have been confused about what a grammar is supposed to do. Is a grammar supposed to account for native speakers' judgments about grammaticality (synonomy, ambiguity,...) or account for grammaticality (synonomy, ambiguity,...)? These are not the same thing! Judging a sentence to be ambiguous is an ACT. That a sentence is ambiguous is certainly not. To take a well-worn example: Present to a class the sentence "I heard the girl playing my song", and poll them on amibiguity. I submit that the majority will judge it to be unambiguous (I have done this many times). Do you want your grammar to account for this fact? Or do you want your grammar to account for the fact that the sentence IS multiply ambiguous (whether or not particular people judge it so)? Notions such as "performance" and "the ideal speaker-hearer" were designed to collapse the distinction in an odd sort of way. The real intent, though, was to get linguists out of the people business. No actual person is this ideal speaker-hearer, so none should be polled. And of course no such ideal can be polled about anything either. Exit polling (from linguistics). Of course, anyone who continues using expressions like "judgments/intuitions of the native speaker" is going to continue to face student unrest (if not mutiny) in Syntax I, because the audience is going to take such expressions at their face value.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Before we can discuss this, wouldn't we have to be able to show that OT is other than all-powerful? I mean if it can capture anything desired constraint, then on the one hand, there is no point trying to find an inadequacy, and on the other, that very fact IS the biggest possible inadequacy. Alexis MRMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue