Nik:
> the 'is syntax arbitrary' debate arises because working out what is
> syntactic and what is semantic is a major headache in the lives of
> everyday working syntacticians.

I still don't get it. What is the connection between working out what
is syntactic and what is semantic and deciding whether syntax is
arbitrary?

Also, it seems to me that the working out what is syntactic and what
is semantic matters only if you're the sort of syntactician who
ignores semantics, so that labelling something as semantic means that
it needn't be accounted for.

> > I'm not clear about what counts as a 'system'.
> > I'm also surprised to hear that functional linguists reject the idea
> > that the meaningless stuff (if that is what 'arbitrary' means) can't
> > be systematic, for such a system could still be functionally motivated
> > (e.g. by parser-related factors).
>
> Isn't he saying (I was quoting him) that functionalists argue for the
> non-arbitrariness of much that formalists identify as arbitrary.

But do formalists actually identify it as arbitrary? It's not something
formalists pay much attention to one way or the other, because it's
not really relevant; it doesn't alter the syntactic facts.

> > I've always felt that Dick is a formalist when talking about grammar
> > and
> > a cognitivist when talking about language. Which seems pretty sane.
>
> Yes, I agree. But it poses a problem for establishing the coherence of your
> world view to a sceptical world.

Does one really owe it to the world to establish the coherence of one's
world view? It takes an awful lot of effort, and the world seldom seems
very grateful for it... Maybe the effort would be better spent on making
one's world view more coherent/elaborated/comprehensive/etc.

--And.