Re: THEORY: no more URs! [was: Re: Optimum number of symbols]

At 2:56 PM -0500 05/25/02, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>Quoting And Rosta <a-rosta@...>:
>
>>  > I am very sympathetic to this idea (no URs); I tried doing something
>>  > like this in grad school, but I was basically "laughed off the stage"
>>  > and didn't have the courage to pursue it then.
>>
>>  I wonder if that indicates a cultural difference between US and
>>  British academia: I can't imagine you getting laughed off the stage
>>  in Britain in such a circumstance.
>
>That may well be.  In my experience (rather more limited than Dirk),
>I find that American academes tend to be very cliquish and often
>intolerant of people who present viewpoints in opposition to their
>own. Towing the line of the department is an all too common frailty,
>and is one reason I enjoy being at a rather heterodox university
>where no one theory or paradigm reigns preeminent.
But that can also become a rallying point for cliquishness; in fact,
it is often perceived that way when confronted with U of Chicago
work: "U of Chicago? Oh, they make a point of being different."
Witness John Goldsmith and (the late) James McCawley.

I should add that I admire both Goldsmith and McCawley immensely.

>But, I had never before thought of this as a peculiarly American
>phenomenon.  Cynic that I am, I had assumed this was an by-product
>of human tendencies in general. I still think that's true, but it
>may be that circumstances in America exacerbate the problem.
Since my current work is in the older, descriptive tradition, it
doesn't bother me so much any more. There's a lot more tolerance for
odd theoretical predilections among descriptivists since the point is
to accurately and elegantly describe linguistic structures, not to
demonstrate cleverness by tweaking a theory.

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga                  Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

Man deth swa he byth thonne he mot swa he wile.
'A man does as he is when he can do what he wants.'

- Old English Proverb