Jump to content

Principles and parameters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.232.231.16 (talk) at 17:35, 14 January 2009 (P&P has not only been criticised by non-formalist linguists, Minimalism is also an implicit criticism of P&P). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Principles and parameters is a framework in generative linguistics. Principles and parameters was largely formulated by the linguists Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik, though it was the culmination of the research of many linguists. Today, many linguists have adopted this framework, and it is considered the dominant form of mainstream generative linguistics.[citation needed]

Framework

The central idea of principles and parameters is that a person's syntactic knowledge can be modelled with two formal mechanisms:

  • A finite set of fundamental principles that are common to all languages; e.g., that a sentence must always have a subject, even if it is not overtly pronounced.
  • A finite set of parameters that determine syntactic variability amongst languages; e.g., a binary parameter that determines whether or not the subject of a sentence must be overtly pronounced (this example is sometimes referred to as the Pro-drop parameter).

Within this framework, the goal of linguistics is to identify all of the principles and parameters that are universal to human language (called: Universal Grammar). As such, any attempt to explain the syntax of a particular language using a principle or parameter is cross-examined with the evidence available in other languages. This leads to continual refinement of the theoretical machinery of generative linguistics in an attempt to account for as much syntactic variation in human language as possible.

Language acquisition

According to this framework, principles and parameters are part of a genetically innate universal grammar (UG) which all humans possess, barring any genetic disorders. As such, principles and parameters do not need to be learned by exposure to language. Rather, exposure to language merely triggers the parameters to adopt the correct setting.

Criticism

Principles and parameters theory as well as the idea of a UG has been criticized by linguistic anthropologists, conversation analysts, and applied linguists. Data of this sort, such as recordings and transcriptions of natural, everyday types of conversation, show a different picture of what language looks like and how it is used. For example, formal linguistics takes the sentence to be the canonical unit of analysis whereas conversation analysis shows that speakers in conversation often do not use complete sentences or even complete words to converse. Rather, discourse is composed of sequences of turns which are composed of turn constructional units (e.g. a word, phrase, clause, sentence)[1]. Other discourse and corpus linguistic analyses also suggest that recursion and other forms of grammatical complexity are rare in spoken discourse (especially in preliterate societies) but common in written discourse suggesting that much of grammatical complexity may in fact a product of literacy training[2][3][4][5]. Other critics point out that there is little if anything that can unequivocally be called universal across the world's languages[6]. Whereas Chomsky and other formal linguists have painted language as a static, linear information transmission system, discourse analyses have focused on the dynamic, dialogic, and social nature of language[7][8][9]. Lastly, strong evidence from historical linguistics suggests that grammar is an emergent property of language use[10][11][12].

Criticism of principles and parameters has most often been due to its stance on language acquisition. Although the framework is accepted by many mainstream linguists[citation needed], it is very controversial amongst psychologists, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists due to the strong nativism it espouses in relation to language acquisition. For example, the developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello has argued that there is no evidence of innate linguistic knowledge in the early utterances of children.

Another source of criticism is the binary nature of parameters in the framework. For example, the linguist Larry Trask argues that the ergative case system of the Basque language is not a simple binary parameter, and that different languages can have different levels of ergativity.[13]

The influence of principles and parameters is most apparent in the works of linguists who subscribe to the Minimalist Program, Noam Chomsky's most recent contribution to linguistics. This program of research utilizes conceptions of economy to enhance the search for universal principles and parameters. Linguists in this program assume that humans use as economic a system as possible in their innate syntactic knowledge. However, the Minimalist program also differs markedly from P&P by insisting on all parametric variation between lexical rather than syntactic.

Examples

Examples of theorized principles are:

Examples of theorized parameters are:

See also

References

  1. ^ Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, G. Jefferson (1974). "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation." Language 50(4): 696-735.
  2. ^ Chafe, W. L. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. D. R. Olson, N. Torrence and A. Hildyard. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
  3. ^ Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change. New York, Longman.
  4. ^ Kalmar, I. (1985). Are There Really No Primitive Languages? Literacy, Language, and Learning. D. R. Olson, N. Torrence and A. Hildyard, Cambridge U Press.
  5. ^ Thompson, S. A. and P. J. Hopper (2001). Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistics Structure. J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper. Amsterdam, Benjamins.
  6. ^ Tomasello, M. (2004). "What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Commentary on Wunderlich." Studies in Language 28(3)
  7. ^ Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. Everyday Language:Studies in Ethnomethodology. G. Psathas. New York, Irvington Publishers: 97-121
  8. ^ Goodwin, C. (2003b). The Semiotic Body in its Environment. Discourses of the Body. J. Coupland and R. Gwyn. Oxford, Oxford University Press
  9. ^ Heritage, J. (1987). Ethnomethodology. Social Theory Today. A. Giddens and J. Turner. Cambridge, Polity Press.
  10. ^ Hopper, P. (1987). "Emergent Grammar." Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139-57.
  11. ^ Hopper, P. and E. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, Cambridge U Press.
  12. ^ Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Gramma: A Reconstruction, Oxford U Press.
  13. ^ Larry Trask reviews The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar by Mark C. Baker
  • Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. Basic Bks.
  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993) Principles and Parameters Theory, in Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics). MIT Press.
  • Lightfoot, D. (1982). The Language Lottery: Towards a Biology of Grammars. MIT Press.
  • Musso, M., Moro, A. , Glauche. V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C., Weiller, C. “Broca’s area and the language instinct,” Nature neuroscience, 2003, vol.6, pp. 774–78
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principles_and_parameters&oldid=264072363"