Mike,
I agree with Jim:
JLF> I don't think I've seen a better précis of this bit
> of recent history of linguistics than Mike's.
By linguistic wars, I was referring to Chomsky's attitude
of overstating his claims for any hypothesis he happens
to propose. If you notice the thread that runs through
all three paragraphs of your summary, Chomsky is always
waging a war with somebody.
I recall a computational linguist who made the following
remark (but he asked not to be identified):
> Any good computer scientist can invent half a dozen
> new formalisms before breakfast. But in linguistics,
> Chomsky is the only one who is allowed to invent
> formalisms. If anyone else dares to invent a formalism,
> Chomsky denounces it as a notational variant of one of
> his own (and a few years later quietly adopts some of
> the best innovations.)
I was using Chomsky as an example of someone who makes
overstated claims that end up being retracted or weakened
a few years later. In the note to Rob, I suggested that
he qualify the claims for his proposal.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 28 2006 - 01:20:48 MET DST