Paraconsistency and Plausible Argumentation in Generative Grammar: A Case Study

Kertész, András and Rákosi, Csilla (2013) Paraconsistency and Plausible Argumentation in Generative Grammar: A Case Study. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22 (2). pp. 195-230. ISSN 0925-8531

Preview

Text Kertesz Andras Paraconsistency and 13.pdf - Accepted Version Download (453kB) | Preview

Abstract

While the analytical philosophy of science regards inconsistent theories as disastrous, Chomsky allows for the temporary tolerance of inconsistency between the hypotheses and the data. However, in linguistics there seem to be several types of inconsistency. The present paper aims at the development of a novel metatheoretical framework which provides tools for the representation and evaluation of inconsistencies in linguistic theories. The metatheoretical model relies on a system of paraconsistent logic and distinguishes between strong and weak inconsistency. Strong inconsistency is destructive in that it leads to logical chaos. In contrast, weak inconsistency may be constructive, because it is capable of accounting for the simultaneous presence of seemingly incompatible structures. However, paraconsistent logic cannot grasp the dynamism of the emergence and resolution of weak inconsistencies. Therefore, the metatheoretical approach is extended to plausible argumentation. The workability of this metatheoretical model is tested with the help of a detailed case study on an analysis of discontinuous constituents in Government-Binding Theory. Keywords: generative syntax, inconsistency, paraconsistency, plausible argumentation

Actions (login required)

Edit Item