Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorNefdt, Ryan Mark
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-12T10:30:11Z
dc.date.available2016-10-12T10:30:11Z
dc.date.issued2016-10
dc.identifier.citationNefdt , R M 2016 , ' Scientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntax ' , Linguistics and Philosophy , vol. 39 , no. 5 , pp. 357-394 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9193-4en
dc.identifier.issn0165-0157
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 245326470
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 60c568f5-79e3-4da3-894b-0381b1817697
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84989177844
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000387616200001
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/9650
dc.description.abstractIn 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):639–659, 2007) minimalist idealisation strategy in the sciences. Following a line set by Blutner (Theor Linguist, 37(1–2):27–35, 2011) (albeit for different purposes), I propose this minimalist idealisation analysis for a broad construal of the generative linguistic programme and thus cite examples from a wide range of linguistic frameworks including early generative syntax (i.e. Standard Theory, Government and Binding and Principles and Parameters), Minimalism (Chomsky in The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995), the parallel architecture (Jackendoff in Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002) and optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky in Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar, 1993/2004). Lastly, I claim that from a modelling perspective, the dynamic turn in syntax (Kempson et al. in Dynamic syntax—the flow of language understanding, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2001; Cann et al. in The dynamics of language: an introduction, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005) can be explained as a continuation, as opposed to a marked shift (or revolution), of the generative modelling paradigm (despite radical theory change). Seen in this light, my proposal is an even broader construal of the generative 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.
dc.format.extent38
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofLinguistics and Philosophyen
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.en
dc.subjectModelsen
dc.subjectGenerative grammaren
dc.subjectDynamic syntaxen
dc.subjectIdealisationen
dc.subjectPhilosophy of scienceen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectP Philology. Linguisticsen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.subject.lccP1en
dc.titleScientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntaxen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemologyen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9193-4
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record