Against Taking Linguistic Diversity at "Face Value"

Evans & Levinson (E&L)advocate taking linguistic diversity at "face value". Their argument consists of a list of diverse phenomena, and the assertion that no non-vacuous theory could possibly uncover a meaningful unity underlying them. I argue, with evidence from Tlingit and Warlpi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pesetsky, David (Contributor)
Other Authors: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy (Contributor)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press, 2010-03-18T13:28:49Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 01037 am a22001813u 4500
001 52701
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Pesetsky, David  |e author 
100 1 0 |a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy  |e contributor 
100 1 0 |a Pesetsky, David  |e contributor 
100 1 0 |a Pesetsky, David  |e contributor 
245 0 0 |a Against Taking Linguistic Diversity at "Face Value" 
260 |b Cambridge University Press,   |c 2010-03-18T13:28:49Z. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/52701 
520 |a Evans & Levinson (E&L)advocate taking linguistic diversity at "face value". Their argument consists of a list of diverse phenomena, and the assertion that no non-vacuous theory could possibly uncover a meaningful unity underlying them. I argue, with evidence from Tlingit and Warlpiri, that E&L's list itself should not be taken at face value - and that the actual research record already demonstrates unity amidst diversity. 
546 |a en_US 
655 7 |a Article 
773 |t Behavioral and Brain Sciences