Abstract
In this paper, I address the issue of scientific modelling in contemporary linguistics, focusing on the generative tradition. In so doing, I identify two common varieties of linguistic idealisation, which I call determination and isolation respectively. I argue that these distinct types of idealisation can both be described within the remit of Weisberg’s (J Philos 104(12):639–659, 2007) minimalist idealisation strategy in the sciences. Following a line set by Blutner (Theor Linguist, 37(1–2):27–35, 2011) (albeit for different purposes), I propose this minimalist idealisation analysis for a broad construal of the generative linguistic programme and thus cite examples from a wide range of linguistic frameworks including early generative syntax (i.e. Standard Theory, Government and Binding and Principles and Parameters), Minimalism (Chomsky in The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995), the parallel architecture (Jackendoff in Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002) and optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky in Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar, 1993/2004). Lastly, I claim that from a modelling perspective, the dynamic turn in syntax (Kempson et al. in Dynamic syntax—the flow of language understanding, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2001; Cann et al. in The dynamics of language: an introduction, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005) can be explained as a continuation, as opposed to a marked shift (or revolution), of the generative modelling paradigm (despite radical theory change). Seen in this light, my proposal is an even broader construal of the generative tradition, along scientific modelling lines. Thus, I offer a lens through which to appreciate the scientific contribution of generative grammar, amid an increased resistance to some of its core theoretical posits, in terms of a brand of structural realism in the philosophy of science and specifically scientific modelling.
Highlights
The generative tradition in linguistics took the form of a scientific revolution in the middle of the twentieth century
This account is in terms of the specific type of modelling practice that this framework brought to the study of natural language(s), namely minimalist models idealisation (Weisberg 2007)
My method is the reverse of the one they take. While they argue that the London model of superconductivity underwent model change without theory change, I will argue that dynamic syntax utilises similar modelling strategies to the generative tradition while the theory has been shifted on almost all accounts
Summary
The generative tradition in linguistics took the form of a scientific revolution in the middle of the twentieth century. I do, offer a lens through which to appreciate the scientific contribution of the generative tradition in linguistics (whether or not it is deemed to be a “science” at the end of the day) This account is in terms of the specific type of modelling practice that this framework brought to the study of natural language(s), namely minimalist models idealisation (Weisberg 2007). I argue that the generative tradition can be appreciated for ushering this type of modelling practice into the study of language and more broadly construed in terms of it This analysis does not presuppose any evaluative benefits or disadvantages of specific modelling trends, nor does it offer comments to that effect. I revisit the issue of why the modelling perspective is illuminating in the case of contemporary linguistics
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
