A History of the Concept of Parameter in Generative Grammar
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI VERONA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURES AND CIVILISATIONS GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN PHILOLOGY, LITERATURE AND LINGUISTICS WITH THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF FONDAZIONE CARIVERONA Cycle / year XXIX / 2014 TITLE OF THE DOCTORAL THESIS A HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT OF PARAMETER IN GENERATIVE GRAMMAR S.S.D. L-LIN/01 Coordinator: Prof./ssa RAFFAELLA BERTAZZOLI Tutor: Prof. GIORGIO GRAFFI Co-tutor: Prof. DENIS DELFITTO Doctoral Student: Dott. ALESSANDRO RIOLFI This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, Italy. To read a copy of the licence, visit the web page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. A history of the concept of parameter in Generative Grammar Alessandro Riolfi PhD thesis Verona, 23 May 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis traces the history of the concept of parameter in Generative Grammar, from the first steps of the Principles and Parameters model in the late 1970s to the advent of the Minimalist Program (MP), examining how this notion has been implemented both during and after this transition. The analysis carried out in this dissertation starts from the systematization of the so-called “standard theory” of Generative Grammar in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) until the last developments of the MP. Chapter I offers an overview of the protohistory of the concept of parameter by focusing on the factors, both theoretical and empirical, at the basis of the systematic formulation of this notion in Chomsky (1981a). The theoretical factors are identified with the distinction between descriptive and explanatory adequacy and Chomsky’s proposed solution to the so-called problem of the poverty of the stimulus . The empirical factor consists in the outcome of Rizzi’s and Taraldsen’s pre-parametric inquiries, which shed new light on the systematicity of linguistic variation. In Chapter II, I examine the individual formulation of the main parameters that were proposed in Generative Grammar within the Government-Binding (GB) Theory of the Eighties. While the parameters at issue are taken from the list that is proposed in Rizzi (2014), in the first part of the chapter they are retrospectively classified according to the specific syntactic property they would refer to in current minimalist theories. Chapter III focuses on the debate about the concept of parameter which took place during the first decade of the 21 st century. The first two positions which are discussed are Kayne’s (2000, 2005) microparametric approach, which draws from the idea that parametric variation is located in the lexicon, and Baker’s (2001, 2008a) macroparametric approach, which instead relies on the classical idea that parameters are expressed on principles. These two approaches are then confronted with Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) criticism, which points out their descriptive and theoretical flaws. This chapter ends with the presentation of the parametric model proposed by Roberts & Holmberg (2010), which overcomes the limitations of micro- and macro-parameters by combining a lexically-based, microparametric view of linguistic variation with the idea that parametric variation is an emergent property of the interaction of UG, primary linguistic data, and third-factor considerations. Chapters IV and V evaluate the classical parameters of the GB Theory which still play a role in current generative theory. Chapter IV reviews the null subject parameter, the 3 V-to-T movement parameter, the polysynthesis parameter, and the overt vs covert wh- movement parameter, while Chapter V is devoted to the history of the head-complement parameter. While on the one hand null subject, V-to-T, and polysynthesis can be reconciled with Roberts & Holmberg’s theory, which is based on the assumption that the locus of parameters is the functional lexicon, on the other it is argued that wh-movement and head-directionality pertain to the A-P interface, as envisioned by Berwick & Chomsky (2011). The picture emerging from this analysis highlights that the nature of parametric variation is twofold: syntactic and post-syntactic. This has an interesting consequence on the duality between head-movement and phrasal movement, as only in narrow syntax heads are observed to move, with XPs being linearized post-syntactically. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing of this PhD thesis has not been an easy task. Surprisingly, this is also true of this acknowledgments section, which would easily rival the length of this whole work if I could thank all the people who have been supporting and helping me during the last three years. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors, prof. Giorgio Graffi and prof. Denis Delfitto. In particular, prof. Graffi has been following my work ever since my MA thesis, and I am very grateful to him not only for always being supportive and for helping me with my writings, but also and especially for transmitting me his passion for linguistics and its history. During our meetings, his knowledge of the subject and his sharp observations have stimulated my curiosity and have pushed me further and further in developing by research. I am also grateful to the Department of Cultures and Civilisations of the University of Verona, whose activities and seminars have given me food for thought and have stimulated my growth as a scholar. Secondly, I am very grateful to prof. Luigi Rizzi and prof. Ur Shlonsky. During my experience as a visiting student at the University of Geneva, their insights and suggestions on my research project have significantly contributed to the final shape of this thesis. Finally, but not least, I would like to thank my thesis evaluators, prof. Frederick Newmeyer and prof. Ur Shlonsky, for their useful comments and their feedback. 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – The birth of the concept of “parameter” in Generative Grammar and its development until Lectures on Government and Binding (1981a)..............................11 1.1 – The theoretical foundations of Generative Grammar.............................................11 1.1.1 – The research program in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)..................12 1.1.2 – The paradox of language learning: the logical problem of the “poverty of the stimulus” .....................................................................................................................16 1.2 – Prehistory of the term “parameter” ........................................................................19 1.2.1 – The Extended Standard Theory and the search for linguistic universals ........19 1.2.2 – The term “parameter” in Conditions on Rules of Grammar (1976)..................22 1.3 – Generative Grammar’s development in the second half of the Seventies and the first explicit parameters ..................................................................................................25 1.3.1 – The Subjacency Condition and the Nominative Island Condition....................25 1.3.2 – From a language-particular approach to a comparative approach in the investigation of UG .....................................................................................................29 1.3.3 – The first example of parametrization: Rizzi and the principle of Subjacency ..30 1.3.4 – Taraldsen and the Null Subject parameter .....................................................32 1.3.5 – Toward the systematic formulation of the P&P model ....................................35 1.4 – The concept of parameter as an epistemological necessity ..................................36 1.4.1 – The concept of parameter in the “Pisa Lectures”............................................36 1.4.2 – Language typology in the P&P model: core grammar and periphery..............39 1.4.3 – The concept of parameter and language acquisition ......................................41 1.5 – Conclusions...........................................................................................................43 Chapter 2 – The formulation of the main parameters of the Government-Binding Theory...............................................................................................................................45 2.1 – A retrospective classification of the parameters of the Government-Binding Theory .......................................................................................................................................45 2.1.1 – Locality, Case-assignment, Merge and Linearization Parameters..................46 2.1.2 – Some notes on Spellout Parameters ..............................................................47 2.2 – The formulation of the first explicit parameters......................................................49 7 2.2.1 – The parameterization of Subjacency extended: the bounding nodes in French ....................................................................................................................................50 2.2.2 – The formulation of the Null Subject Parameter ...............................................57 2.2.3 – The lexical parameter of S’-deletion ...............................................................71