Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - BH rolf: data in search of a theory

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca (Vincent DeCaen)
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: BH rolf: data in search of a theory
  • Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:46:42 -0500 (EST)


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page