Csilla Rákosi – författare

It is widely believed that inconsistency is one of the greatest sins a scholar can commit. This issue is especially relevant in linguistics due to the rich diversity of data types, exceptions to the rules, counterexamples to the hypotheses, and background assumptions which constantly come into conflict with methodological principles. Bringing together ideas from linguistics and philosophy of science, this groundbreaking book seeks to answer the following questions: which kinds of inconsistency arise in linguistic theorising? Under which conditions can inconsistencies be tolerated? And how can inconsistencies be resolved? It is the first study to develop a novel metatheoretical framework that accounts for the emergence and the resolution of inconsistency in linguistic theorising, and to reveal the strategies of inconsistency resolution in theoretical linguistics. Supported by detailed case studies, the findings of this metatheoretical analysis can be applied to improve the effectiveness of the working linguist's problem-solving activity.

In recent years, research on the nature of linguistic evidence has gained significant attention. One key finding is that linguistic inquiry should not rely solely on a single source of evidence such as introspection, corpus data, or real or thought experiments, but rather combine several types within a single study. However, integrating these diverse forms of evidence presents serious methodological challenges. Broadly, two main situations can arise. The first is the convergence of evidence, wherein different types of data jointly support a hypothesis. In such cases, the hypothesis becomes more robust than it would be if supported by only one kind of evidence. Over the past decade, the concept of converging evidence in linguistics has been widely explored and discussed. The second, much less studied situation, is the divergence of evidence. Evidence diverges when different sources point towards incompatible hypotheses about a linguistic phenomenon. While convergence strengthens theoretical claims, divergence exposes inconsistencies that require explanation.Written accessibly, Diverging Evidence in Semantics and Pragmatics focuses on cases in which diverging evidence in semantics and pragmatics leads to inconsistencies, providing insight on how linguistic theories can account for conflicting data and the challenges they pose for empirical research.

Even though the range of phenomena syntactic theories intend to account for is basically the same, the large number of current approaches to syntax shows how differently these phenomena can be interpreted, described, and explained. The goal of the volume is to probe into the question of how exactly these frameworks differ and what if anything they have in common.Descriptions of a sample of current approaches to syntax are presented by their major practitioners (Part I) followed by their metatheoretical underpinnings (Part II). Given that the goal is to facilitate a systematic comparison among the approaches, a checklist of issues was given to the contributors to address. The main headings are Data, Goals, Descriptive Tools, and Criteria for Evaluation. The chapters are structured uniformly allowing an item-by-item survey across the frameworks. The introduction lays out the parameters along which syntactic frameworks must be the same and how they may differ and a final paper draws some conclusions about similarities and differences.The volume is of interest to descriptive linguists, theoreticians of grammar, philosophers of science, and studies of the cognitive science of science.