Hawkins (2004): '... in an explanatory vacuum'

Herenegun aipatzen genuén Comrie, nor ...   

..., antzera nola Haspelmath, mintzo da buruz responsabilitatea e linguista ("one's responsibility as a linguist"), zein egongo litzaké, bere hitzetan, obligatua ki saiatú behintzat azaltzen zergátik gauzak diren nola diren, zergátik estruktura sintaktikoak dirén nola diren.

To the extent that the actual distribution departs from this random distribution, the linguist is obliged to state and, if possible, account for the discrepancy.

Eta "azaldu" horrek esan nahi du "azaldu ahalik eta hobetoen", emánez, ahalko balitz, azalpen logiko bat, zein uler daigun. Lakak eta bere kolega formalistak ez dute ematen azalpen logikorik, soilik trasladatzen duté arazoa ki beste esparru bat, esparru biologikoa, non estrukturak ez diren azaltzen, baizik sinpleki deskribatzen.

Izan daigun beste referentzia bat buruz puntu hau, Hawkins, nor dén linguista funtzionalista ondo famatua, honela mintzo zen buruz hurbilketa formala (Laka,...) an bere "Efficiency and complexity in grammars" (2004:265):

We still need a theory for why the basic hierarchies and functional principles reflected in grammars are the way they are, and this is the major issue I have been dealing with here. All kinds of questions remain to be answered, but it is surprising to me that there has been such a lack of curiosity in formal grammar concerning the ultimate explanation for basic principles. Why is there a subjacency constraint? Why are some categories adjacent and others not?Why are gaps and zero forms found in some environments and not others? Why are some categories asymmetrically ordered and others not? What we have seen is a succession of formal models and principles, each of which has been proposed in an explanatory vacuum. [Hawkins, 2004:265]

Bai, hor mugitzen dira Laka eta bere kide formalistak:

... in an explanatory vacuum.

Justuki hortxe, an vakuitate explikatiboa. [⇶]