ebook img

The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation PDF

328 Pages·2014·3.35 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation

The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs Editors Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen University of Vienna / Arizona State University University of Munich Editorial Board Bernard Comrie Christian Lehmann Max Planck Institute, Leipzig University of Erfurt and University of California, Santa Barbara Marianne Mithun William Croft University of California, Santa Barbara University of New Mexico Heiko Narrog Östen Dahl Tohuku University University of Stockholm Johanna L. Wood Gerrit J. Dimmendaal University of Aarhus University of Cologne Debra Ziegeler Ekkehard König University of Paris III Free University of Berlin Volume 153 The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation Edited by András Kertész and Csilla Rákosi The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation Edited by András Kertész University of Debrecen, and MTA-DE Research Group for Theoretical Linguistics Csilla Rákosi MTA-DE Research Group for Theoretical Linguistics John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 8 the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The evidential basis of linguistic argumentation / Edited by András Kertész, Csilla Rákosi. p. cm. (Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 153) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Linguistic models--Data processing. 2. Linguistic analysis (Linguistics) 3. Linguistics-- Research--Methodology. 4. Corpora (Linguistics) 5. Computational linguistics. I. Kertész, András, editor of compilation. II. Rákosi, Csilla, editor of compilation. P128.M6E95 2014 410.1--dc23 2013048427 isbn 978 90 272 5918 9 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7055 9 (Eb) © 2014 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa Table of contents Chapter 1. Introduction: The state of the art and the structure of the book 1 András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi part i. The methodological framework Chapter 2. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics 15 András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi part ii. Object-theoretical applications Chapter 3. The plausibility of approaches to syntactic alternation of Hungarian verbs 51 Károly Bibok Chapter 4. Methods and argumentation in historical linguistics: A case study 71 Katalin Nagy C. Chapter 5. Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena with explicit and implicit subject arguments: Their use and occurrence in the light of data 103 Enikő Németh T. Chapter 6. The development of a taxonomy of verbal disagreements in the light of the p-model 133 Helga Vanda Koczogh Chapter 7. A case of disagreement: On plural reduplicating particles in Hungarian 179 György Rákosi Chapter 8. A plausibility-based model of shifted indexicals 199 Zoltán Vecsey i The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation part iii. Metatheoretical applications Chapter 9. Thought experiments and real experiments as converging data sources in pragmatics 221 András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi Chapter 10. Data and the resolution of inconsistency in Optimality Theory 271 Csilla Rákosi Chapter 11. Conclusions 309 András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi Author index 315 Subject index 317 chapter 1 Introduction The state of the art and the structure of the book András Kertész1, 2 & Csilla Rákosi2 1University of Debrecen, Institute of German Studies, 2MTA-DE Research Group for Theoretical Linguistics 1. The aim of the volume One of the major driving forces in the development of linguistics has been the quest for its empirical foundations. For example, a prominent historian of linguis- tics characterises the essence of this development as follows: Modern theoretical linguistics cannot be understood if its struggle for scientific status is not placed at the centre of its history. The main problem in this quest for scientific status has always been that of empirical access, that is, some notion of what constitutes reliable data, the formulation of one or more causal questions, and some success at answering these questions by means of an explanatory theory. (Seuren 1998: 140; bold emphasis added, italics as in the original) Throughout the history of linguistics, the problem of empiricalness has manifested itself in a complex network of methodological debates. Currently, the debate focuses on the question of what kinds of data are allowed in different linguistic theories and what subtypes of data can work as evidence for or against particular hypotheses. Kertész & Rákosi (2012) contributed to this debate by putting forward a metatheo- retical solution to this problem: the p-model of linguistic data and evidence which conceives of linguistic theorising as a process of plausible argumentation. The aim of the present volume is to show how the p-model can be applied to the everyday problem-solving practice of the working linguist, and, what is of utmost importance, how it can increase the effectiveness of linguistic theorising. 2. On the state of the art From the seventies on, there have been two interrelated sets of methodological assumptions which have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of linguists 2 András Kertész & Csilla Rákosi from generativists to corpus linguists. The first set of assumptions is what we will call the standard view of linguistic data and evidence and which we summarise as follows:1 According to the standard view, the empiricalness of linguistic theories depends crucially on the use of the appropriate data type. This means that the origin of data is decisive: according to generativists, introspection is a reliable data source, while corpus linguists are of the opinion that corpora are the only legiti- mate data sources. There is general agreement on the view that the treatment of data does not require special attention, because their handling can be sufficiently controlled with the help of a few simple, general methodological rules. The standard view of linguistic data and evidence was for the most part shaped by a second set of assumptions, namely, the standard view of the analytical philosophy of science.2 A central idea of the latter was that empirical theories must consist of statements which can be tested on the basis of a particular subset of data, namely, evidence. It is the requirement that evidence has to be directly control- lable, thus objective and totally reliable that lies at the core of the interpretation of the concept ‘evidence’. From these features it follows that evidence was supposed to be capable of justifying the hypotheses of theories and providing a firm base for the decision between rival theories. From the second half of the nineties onwards, there was a turn in the meth- odological debates on data and evidence in linguistics: a series of collections of papers and conferences tackled aspects of linguistic theorising that had been neglected and had previously remained unreflected.3 The quotation below illus- trates the problem that has recently been in the focus of interest: […] there is a growing awareness among formal linguists that a sole reliance on introspective data […] will no longer do. Not only should speakers’ intuitions be collected in a systematic way, but also should the database of linguistic theories be broadened as to include types of data that well go beyond introspective data as the primary data of linguistic theorizing (such as e.g. psycholinguistic and historical 1. See Kertész & Rákosi (2008a, b, 2012) for detailed overviews. 2. A recent textbook characterises the standard view of the analytical philosophy of science as follows: “The two philosophies, logical postivism and Popper’s falsificationism, are usually taken together as forming what is known as the classical tradition. Sometimes the term ‘ positivism’ is used. At other times, it is called the standard or the orthodox view. These latter expressions are apt.” (Hung 2014: 311) 3. See, among others, Schütze (1996), Borsley (ed.) (2005), Lehmann (2004), Kallmeyer & Zifonun (eds) (2007), Kepser & Reis (eds) (2005), Kristiansen et al. (eds) (2006), Penke & Rosenbach (eds) (2004, 2007), Stefanowitsch & Gries (eds) (2007), Sternefeld (ed.) (2007), Featherston & Winkler (eds) (2009), Winkler & Featherston (eds) (2009). Introduction 3 evidence). This recent concern of formal linguistic theory is reflected in other conferences/workshops more or less explicitly touching on the issue of linguistic evidence as well […]. The topic as such is huge. Not only does it touch on the database of linguistic theories but also, inevitably, on methodological issues (evidence, of whatever type, is only as good as the methodology by which it has been ascertained). (Penke & Rosenbach 2007: vii; emphasis added) Against this background, raising questions regarding the useable types of data/ evidence and their treatment in linguistic theories are well-motivated method- ological issues. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why it is extremely difficult to answer such questions. One reason is that linguistics is not a homogeneous discipline. Thus, both the diversity and the common aspects of the treatment of linguistic data and evidence have to be accounted for. Another reason is that the object of linguistic research is not directly available for the linguist, but has to be reconstructed from the directly accessible manifestations of the knowledge of language (see e.g. Kepser & Reis 2005: 1). Therefore, theoretical tools for the repre- sentation and treatment of the indirectness and the uncertainty of linguistic data resulting from them are needed, too. Against these fundamental difficulties, it is understandable that the first attempts in the current literature to solve methodological problems about linguis- tic data and evidence are double-faced. On the one hand, contemporary views still contain elements originating from the standard view of the analytical philosophy of science. For instance, linguistic evidence is still interpreted as a specific subset of data which are true with certainty and whose main task is to test (verify, confirm or falsify) the hypotheses of the theory. On the other hand, the very same views have aspects which are no longer compatible with the standard view of the analytical philosophy of science and the standard view of linguistic data and evidence, and which indicate the need to break with these norms. Every important characteristic of the concept of evidence adapted from the analytical philosophy of science has been questioned, and the new proposals raise a series of innovative ideas.4 These progressive insights are, however, not acknowledged by all authors; and even if they are accepted by several of them, they are accepted in different forms, so they cannot be generalised. The most important new insights are the following: – The database of linguistic research cannot be reduced to introspective data vs. corpus data, but a wide variety of different data types is accepted and deemed legitimate. . See Kertész & Rákosi (2008a, b, 2012) for detailed overviews.

Description:
Currently, one of the methodological debates in linguistics focuses on the question of what kinds of data are allowed in different linguistic theories and what subtypes of data can work as evidence for or against particular hypotheses. The first part of the volume puts forward a methodological frame
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.