Linguistic modelling and the scientific enterprise. (March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nefdt, Ryan M.
• Is Part Of: Language sciences. Volume 54(2016:Apr.)
• Page Start: 43
• Page End: 57
• Publication Date: 2016-03
• Subjects: Models -- Science -- Theoretical linguistics -- Generative grammar -- Linguistic methodology -- Tense; Linguistics -- Periodicals; Language and languages -- Periodicals; Linguistique -- Périodiques; Langage et langues -- Périodiques; Language and languages; Linguistics; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 405
• DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.10.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0388-0001

Abstract

Abstract: In this paper, I critique a recent claim made by Stokhof and van Lambalgen (2011) (hereafter S&vL) that linguistics and science are at odds as to the models and constructions they employ. I argue that their distinction between abstractions and idealisations, the former belonging to the methodology of science and the latter to linguistics, is not a real one. I show that the majority of their arguments are flawed and evidence they cite misleading. Contrary to this distinction, I argue that linguistics, like some variants of the scientific enterprise, uses a minimalist method of idealisation (Weisberg, 2007b), one which includes abstractions (as defined by S&vL) and other idealisations not uncommon to scientific model-building. Finally, I offer an alternative account of the problems cited by S&vL as a direct result of the modelling choices of linguists as opposed to the methods they use to define such models. I do so through the use of the specific example of the treatment of tense and aspect in the mainstream literature. Highlights: I critique claims as to the pseudo-scientific nature of linguistic modelling. I develop an account of linguistic modelling practices in generative grammar. I provide a lens through which to appreciate the scientific contribution of modern linguistics.