A reply to the critiques of "Grammar is grammar and usage is usage."

In this article the author presents his comments to critiques about the article "Grammar is grammar and usage is usage." Critiques recognizes that one possible objection to stochastic grammar is by mixing data from different individuals together in a large data set, evidence relevant to the investigation of the mental grammar of particular individuals is potentially obscured. But he then dismisses the importance of the objection. Critiques goes on to argue, that stochastic grammar is supported by the fact that phenomena that are categorial in some languages are simply a matter of statistical preference in others. So, the person of the subject argument cannot be lower than the person of a no subject argument. A consequence is that one never finds first or second person subjects of passives in that language where the agent is in the third person. In English, as it turns out, similar passives are possible, but very rare compared to passives with, say, third person subjects. As they note, a traditional generative model would ascribe the Lummi facts to competence and the English facts to performance. They see this as a lost generalization. In their view, only a model of grammar allowing stochastic constraints can unite the facts in the two languages, assigning them two different points along the same continuum with respect to relations involving grammatical person.