A conclusive remark on linguistic theorizing and language modeling

Considering the proliferation of responses to Piantadosi's original paper and the ongoing debate sparked by this special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics, it is clear that the discussion has touched a raw nerve in linguistic theorizing . In the original target paper (Chesi, this issue), I illustrated three prototypical (and in many respects, extreme) positions -- the computational, theoretical, and experimental perspectives -- without explicitly endorsing any of them. Instead, I attempted to highlight what I believe are the key weaknesses o f each of these prototypical stances, ultimately concluding that formal (i.e., ' generative ') linguistics -- more specifically, Minimalis m, my theoretical comfort zone -- must adopt practices and tools that are common in both computational and experimental fields . As noted by most respondents, the title and some of the more extreme statements were intended as mild provocations to draw attention to core issues affecting linguistic theorizing . M y position -- somehow obscured behind the ' three - body problem ' -- is that any relevant scientific progress is driven by theoretical insight, not by trawling using experimental or computational methods that are cost - inefficient, energy - intensive, and ultimately unsustainable . Moreover, in full agreement with most of the replies, I believe that the success of certain large language models (L L Ms), which are based on specific architectural assumptions, do es not constitute a refutation of the generative paradigm. On the contrary, it strongly supports several key intuitions that have emerged within the generative linguistic tradition (Rizzi this issue) . H owever, a concrete problem of ' incommensurability ' arises (Hao this issue), as differing methodologies and specialized jargon (Butt this issue) often result in circular, unresolved discussions .