Article published In:
What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics?: The case of innatenessEdited by Martina Penke and Anette Rosenbach
[Studies in Language 28:3] 2004
► pp. 554–579
Edited by Martina Penke and Anette Rosenbach
[Studies in Language 28:3] 2004
► pp. 554–579
Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description?
I argue that the following two assumptions are incorrect: (i) The properties of the innate Universal Grammar can be discovered by comparing language systems, and (ii) functional explanation of language structure presupposes a “correct”, i.e. cognitively realistic, description. Thus, there are two ways in which linguistic explanation does not presuppose linguistic description.
The generative program of building cross-linguistic generalizations into the hypothesized Universal Grammar cannot succeed because the actually observed generalizations are typically one-way implications or implicational scales, and because they typically have exceptions. The cross-linguistic generalizations are much more plausibly due to functional factors.
I distinguish sharply between “phenomenological description” (which makes no claims about mental reality) and “cognitively realistic description”, and I show that for functional explanation, phenomenological description is sufficient.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
Zámečník, Lukáš
2022. The Role of Philosophy of Science in Quantitative Linguistics. Linguistic Frontiers 5:1 ► pp. 13 ff. 
Alfieri, Luca, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia & Paolo Ramat
2021. Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology – An overview. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 1 ff.
Haspelmath, Martin
2021. General linguistics must be based on universals (or non-conventional aspects of language). Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2018. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200], ► pp. 1 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
2016. Review of Evans (2014): The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Studies in Language 40:1 ► pp. 235 ff.
Sommerer, Lotte
2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization. In Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 18], ► pp. 107 ff.
HASPELMATH, MARTIN, ANDREEA CALUDE, MICHAEL SPAGNOL, HEIKO NARROG & ELİF BAMYACI
2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50:3 ► pp. 587 ff.
Piantadosi, Steven T. & Edward Gibson
2014. Quantitative Standards for Absolute Linguistic Universals. Cognitive Science 38:4 ► pp. 736 ff.
Barđdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2012. ‘Hungering and Lusting for Women and Fleshly Delicacies’: Reconstructing Grammatical Relations for Proto‐Germanic*. Transactions of the Philological Society 110:3 ► pp. 363 ff.
Cristofaro, Sonia
2009. Grammatical Categories and Relations: Universality vs. Language‐Specificity and Construction‐Specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:1 ► pp. 441 ff.
Cristofaro, Sonia
2012. Descriptive notions vs. grammatical categories: Unrealized states of affairs and ‘irrealis’. Language Sciences 34:2 ► pp. 131 ff.
Cristofaro, Sonia
2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination?. In Contexts of Subordination [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 249], ► pp. 73 ff.
Engh, Jan
2009. Defective documentation. International linguistics and Modern Norwegian. Folia Linguistica 43:2 ► pp. 269 ff.
Hermon, Gabriella
2009. Language typology and universal grammar: a commentary on the paper by Eric Potsdam. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27:4 ► pp. 773 ff.
Tatevosov, S.
2006. Morphological Universals. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 282 ff.
[no author supplied]
2008. Book Reviews. Linguistic Typology 12:2
[no author supplied]
2011. References. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ► pp. 779 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.