To Jose Luis and all,
Since our leading syntax specialist decided to
retire for a while, I didn't post this. However, now that he has returned
(welcome back Jose Luis) I would like to hear his comments on this.
The initial article appeared in the NYTimes by
Brenda Fowler. A copy was sent out by evol.-psych and the following with
comments by Larry Trask is from Anne's Palanthsci. Thank you
all.
Questions (from me):
1) Do most linguists agree that language is
innate?
2) What about the grammars of all
languages? Are they similar?
3) Does the article (Larry Trask in
particular) present an accurate explanation of Chomskyian grammar?
4) Have we finally reached a time when
both sides to the argument can be melded?
5) If melding can occur, then who would like
to take a stab at the meld?
I shall post this also to Cybalist and ask Piotr,
John, Glen, Marc and all to comment as well.
Best wishes,
Gerry
=============================================================
New York Times
January 15,
2002
'Hard-Wired' Grammar Rules Found for All Languages
By
BRENDA FOWLER
In 1981 the linguist Noam Chomsky, who had already
proposed that
language
was not learned but innate, made an even
bolder claim.
The grammars of all languages, he said, can be described
by
a set of universal rules or principles,
and the differences
among those grammars
are due to a finite set of
options that are also innate.
While most linguists would now agree that
language is innate, Dr.
Chomsky's ideas about principles and parameters have
remained bitterly
controversial. Even his supporters could not claim to have
tested his
theory with the really tough cases, the languages considered
most
different from those the linguists typically know
well.
TRASK: Exactly. Chomsky has worked on no language other
than English, and
his
followers have worked on only a handful
of other languages, almost all of
them European languages which
demonstrably share a common ancestry with
English. The 6000 or so
other languages of the world have received no
more
than the
occasional passing mention. Accordingly, sweeping claims
about
universals of grammar are out of order. It's rather as
though I were to
look carefully at six animal species here in Sussex
and then announce my
"principles of universal zoology" to a startled
world.
But in a new book, Dr. Mark C. Baker, a linguist at Rutgers
University
whose dissertation was supervised by Dr. Chomsky, says he
has discerned
the parameters for a remarkably diverse set of languages,
especially
American-Indian and African tongues.
TRASK: He has,
has he? I'm afraid that working out the grammar of
a
single
language is an enormous task requiring years of dedicated
work. I really
do not believe it is possible to read through
other people's publications
on a number of American and African
languages that you don't know yourself
and thus "discern" anything of
substance.
Now, what about those hypothetical "parameters"?
In the New York Times
article, Baker suggests that we might need
something like thirty
parameters
in all, though I don't know how he
arrives at this figure. But this
"parameter" business is deeply
suspect. Here's what seems to happen
in
practice.
The Chomskyans look at a new language.
Its grammar appears to be
different
from the grammars of other
languages already examined. So, they invent a
new parameter P,
and they declare that the new language has a grammar with
this
parameter assigned to setting P2, while all the other languages
have
grammars assigned instead to setting P1. Ergative
syntax? A new
parameter. Object incorporation into
verbs? A new parameter. No
COMP-trace effects? A new
parameter. Obligatory passivization? A new
parameter.
Verb serialization? A new parameter. And so it
goes.
You can see where this is leading. Every detectable
difference between
one
grammar and another is squeezed into a
"parameter" setting invented for
the
purpose. In this way, the
hypothesis of universal grammar is rendered
invulnerable to
falsification.
But there's more. Languages being the tiresome
beasts that they are, they
sometimes refuse to obey their own
parameters. Some people might consider
such cases to be
falsifications of Chomskyan theory. But not the
Chomskyans.
Their solution? They have invented a distinction between
"core
grammar", which is subject to the requirements of universal
grammar,
and "peripheral grammar", which is not. So, if some
phenomenon in some
language fails to behave as required, it is declared
to be merely a part
of
the periphery, and therefore not subject to
universal grammar, and
therefore not a
problem.
Folks, I am not making this up. This is an honest
and accurate account of
the way the Chomskyans do syntax. And I
hope it explains why so many of
us
in linguistics prefer to pursue other
approaches.