Timeline for Why didn’t generative grammarians value linguistic data from native languages?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2017 at 17:05 | comment | added | user6726 | I disagree that little effort is made; rather, I think you aren't aware of the effort that has been made. I suggest collecting all of the generative textbooks in an area of interest, and comparing extent of coverage according to geographical area. Perhaps your underlying premise is that these textbooks are supposed to be typological surveys, rather than methodological surveys. "Range of languages" is more important for the study of typology: so see Payne's textbook, for one example. | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 16:52 | comment | added | Teusz | To summarize, if I understand correctly, the main reason is just lack of available information on such languages. That’s perfectly reasonable. It’s just striking that given the strong universalist claims of generative Phonology, so little effort is made to make reference to a range or languages in most intro textbooks. Maybe I’m being unreasonable. | |
| Nov 1, 2017 at 16:56 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |