Biblical Hebrew Forum

[decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca (Vincent DeCaen)]

rolf,

i doubt very much that an inductive approach will produce a viable theory. 
the argument for generative grammar was, in part, that no other science 
operates the way earlier linguists did:  the notion of a discovery 
procedure was, in my view, justly rejected. is that what you're asking 
for: a discovery procedure?

generative grammar is about producing mathematical models, like any other 
science. some are more interesting than others, some handle data better 
than others, some predict better than others:  and the search moves on.  
in other words, linguistics is for me applied mathematics. for some it is 
also cognitive psychology... (but biblical scholars might not like that 
soulless materialism).

different models for semantics require different types of supplementation 
by pragmatics. no inductive framework is going to tell you how to do that. 
what you need are better and better semantic models.

it happens, as you know, that i rely on a radical pragmatics theory. since 
tense is inherently deictic, i can't see how you can't rely on pragmatics. 
i do point out that you can isolate pragmatic effects in certain 
environments: e.g., in direct questions, in subordination (you can be sure 
of the temporal reference point).

so, e.g., i found in subordination (as i formally define it):
(1) qatal       100% past tense,        perfective, not progressive
(2) yiqtol      100% not past,          not progressive
(3) qotel       100%                    progressive (verbal use only)

my theory tells me where and how to look, and tells me these ought to be 
the semantic representations:

(i) participle marked progressive, finite verbs default for not 
progressive
(ii) qatal past tense, yiqtol defaults for not past tense

my theory further tells me that pragmatics must handle the defaulting, 
among other things. without theory, i don't get off the ground.

it's precisely following the dictates of theory and method that boxed me 
into the problem of the sequentials. but in this case, being boxed in 
forced me to come up with a refined proposal for semantic theory. and 
theory moves on... i anticipate my proposals being well received in 
formal-linguistic circles.

so after all this hot air of mine, how exactly do we differ? is it at the 
level of philosophy of science....?

V 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dr Vincent DeCaen     <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
University of Toronto, Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative, www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.  --Dewey