Print

Print


I apologize for that then.  I was speaking somewhat, um, what's the
word... not quite "hyperbolically," but perhaps "over-grandiosely"?

In any case, I was kind of rhetorically cutting loose and letting the
facts fall by the wayside.  I'm sorry.


Ed Heil ------------------------------- [log in to unmask]
"Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything
   that's even _remotely_ true!"           -- Homer Simpson

Matt Pearson wrote:

> Ed Heil wrote:
>
> > Well, Matt, if the shoe don't fit, don't wear it.
> >
> > It sure fits Chomsky himself, who was the only person I mentioned in
> > the post that bothered you.
>
> I guess I was confused by your use of the phrase "the vast majority
> of mainstream academic linguists", which seems to embrace a larger
> portion of the field than just Chomsky himself.  Besides which, the
> name Chomsky is frequently used as a cover term for generative
> linguistics, or principles-&-parameters/minimalist theory in general,
> as if his work were necessarily representative of the field (I don't
> think it is, personally).  When I spoke of stereotyping, this is
> precisely
> what I meant - taking Chomsky's theoretical and methodological
> shortcomings (real or imagined) and attributing them to "the vast
> majority of mainstream academic linguists".
>
> Matt.
>