LECTURETTE #1

LABELS
The framework we're going to be discussing before any others, the one
above all others without knowledge of which it is impossible to do any
responsible work in syntactic theory nowadays, suffers from a high degree
of terminological infelicity in that there is no short lable for it that
is completely and unambiguously acceptable to everybody. I've listed in
(1) a number of labels that have been used by various people, at various
times. All of these are objectionable on some grounds or other.
(1) 'the framework that is associated with Noam Chomsky and his
students (in that Department of Linguistics and Philosophy)
at MIT'
Standard Theory
Government & Binding (GB)
Revised, Extended Standard Theory (REST)
The Principles & Parameters Approach (P&P or PPA)
Minimality/Minimalist Program (MP)
We might try to shorten the first label while retaining its essential
content by calling it 'Chomskyan theory', but this is not often done and
would convey an inaccurate impression. Unlike 'Newtonian theory' of
gravitation, 'Einsteinian theory' of relativity, and 'Darwinian theory'
of evolution, this framework of syntactic theory did not burst full-blown
like Athena from the brain of a single, eponymous scientist, in this case
Noam Chomsky. In many respects, the development of the framework has
more in common with quantum theory, being the result of fruitful interac-
tion between a variety of researchers often at odds with each other. In
fact, less than most other frameworks on the market is this one tied to a
single individual or small group of individuals. While Chomsky's has
without doubt been the hand that has guided and molded it through its
various developments and whose judgment must sooner or later be passed on
any new development, the research in this programme is free-wheeling and
there is frequent disagreement amongst the various proponents, including
Chomsky himself. Furthermore, unlike many other frameworks there is no
one authoritative text setting forth the tenets of the theory and there-
fore it is much harder to define what constitutes orthodoxy within this
school and what lies beyond the pale.
I'm saying all this now because you will frequently hear, from me and
from others, statements about this particular framework which, taken at
face value, would imply that its proponents constitute not just a clique
but a cabal, a nomenklatura, an exclusianist circle of initiates, aco-
lytes, and mystagogues who subscribe to the theory as though it were one
of the more recondite mystery religions of Imperial times. While there
may be some sociological truth to such insinuations, they distort the
essential scientific nature of the theory itself.
So what *is* this framework commonly called? One label is 'Standard
Theory'. This label is resented by a lot of people because it implies
that the 'standard' in syntactic theory is defined by Chomsky and his
students and that everything that deviates from that 'standard' is ipso
facto, well, deviant. This attitude is unfortunately reinforced by the
above-mentioned exclusianistic behaviour of many 'Standard Theoreti-
cians', who often talk as though the 'Standard Theory' were the only
generative theory of syntax available. (The van Riemsdijk & Williams
text i mentioned in my 'Welcome!' posting has been taken to task by at
least one reviewer for calling itself an 'introduction to *the* theory of
grammar' when it's actually an introduction to specifically the framework
we're discussing here.) The extent to which theoretical assumptions pe-
culiar to a given framework are taken for granted by the proponents
thereof is an important research interest of mine, and while the 'Stan-
dard Theoreticians' are no less immune from this tendency than others
neither are they any more so.
Properly speaking, the label 'Standard Theory' refers to the entire histo-
rical edifice of syntactic theory built by Chomsky and his students over
several decades and, rather like many an old mansion, includes several
sections which, having been added on at different times, are of start-
lingly different fundamental design. Essentially, the framework began
around the mid-50's. The definitive presentation of this earlier stage
is Chomsky's 1965 book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, and often the
phrase 'Standard Theory' is used in a strict sense to refer specifically
to the theory presented there, also called the 'Aspects model'.
Over the next 15 years or so, the framework went through massive revision
and reconsideration, to the point that its fundamental character changed
substantially; we will be discussing some of these changes later. By the
early 80's a framework of syntactic theory had been developed which,
while clearly descended from the Aspects model in its general outline and
fundamental assumptions, was different enough to require a completely new
presentation and a distinctive label. It is primarily this framework
that we will be discussing here.
In 1980 Chomsky delivered a series of lectures at Pisa which were pu-
blished the subsequent year under the title 'Lectures on Government and
Binding'. These lectures essentially presented the new framework for the
first time in an organized, relatively coherent form. As a result, the
title of the book was very swiftly given to the framework, which conse-
quently is referred to by many as 'Government & Binding' or 'GB'. This
is unfortunate. The Pisa Lectures, and the book that came out of them,
are aptly titled because in them, although he outlines the whole frame-
work, Chomsky concentrates on two particular sections of the theory,
namely those aspects dealing with 'government', i.e. the relationship
between a syntactic head (e.g., a verb or preposition) and its depen-
dents, and 'binding', i.e. the relationship between a pronoun or anaphor
and its antecedent. But as i shall be explaining later the framework as
a whole involves roughly a half-dozen such 'sub-theories', and it is not
the case that 'Government' and 'Binding' are in any sense the two most
important of them; they're merely the ones Chomsky had the most to say
about in 1980. I have myself on at least one occasion heard Chomsky
express regret that the label 'Government & Binding' has been taken for
the entire framework, and his preference for the label 'Revised, Extended
Standard Theory', often abbreviated 'REST'. Partly because of Chomsky's
thus-stated preference and partly because i agree with his rationale for
it (which we shall to some extent get to later), this is one of the la-
bels i tend to prefer. It offends primarily by its maintenance of the
adjective 'standard' in defining what is merely one sect, as it were, or
school of thought in syntactic theory. Perhaps if we could just agree to
understand that word 'standard' in this context rather as we do in the
names of corporate bodies such as 'Standard Oil of Ohio' all this excess
terminology would be unnecessary.
('Why do we have "Standard Theory" and "Revised Extended Standard Theory"
but no "Extended Standard Theory"?' you may well ask. The label 'Exten-
ded Standard Theory' (abbreviated 'EST', naturally) was used for a while
during the '70's to describe a particular stage in the evolution of the
framework. Andrew Radford's 1980 textbook Syntactic Theory specifically
refers to it by this label. So it's worth knowing about; but it's not
much used nowadays.)
During the second half of the 80's another label developed among many of
the framework's proponents. That label is 'the Principles & Parameters
Approach', typically abbreviated (when abbreviated at all) 'P&P' or 'PPA'.
My upcoming outline of the framework's theoretical assumptions will make
the appropriateness of this label clear; but it still offends some, who
complain, 'Are rival frameworks ipso facto unprincipled? Don't other
frameworks make use of parameters?' These complaints are legitimate, but,
as you will see, the paired notions of 'principles and parameters' are
central to the framework under discussion in ways that they perhaps are
not in others. Partly for this reason, i have accepted the label 'PPA'
as also a valid label for this framework.
As a result of works published by Luigi Rizzi and by Chomsky in the early
1990's, a new label has recently begun being used by some proponents of
this framework: 'Minimality' or 'the Minimalist Program' (MP). I consider
this a rather unfortunate term, since many competing frameworks of syntac-
tic theory can be called 'minimalist' in different ways. I therefore tend
to avoid the label 'Minimality' in favour of the labels 'REST' and 'PPA'.
(Some of you will have heard the adjective 'Lexicalist' and may be wondering
where it fits in with all this. The 'Lexicalist Hypothesis', to oversim-
plify somewhat, is the claim that a certain amount of what is usually re-
garded as 'syntax' is actually done in the lexicon, logically 'preceding'
the application of any strictly syntactic rules, transformations, what
have you. Suffice it to say that ALL versions of Chomskyan theory since
the early '70's assume some version of it, as do an increasing number of
competing frameworks. Indeed, REST has been getting increasingly 'lexi-
calist' in recent years.)
Be it noted that none of these labels are to be construed as precisely
synonymous with each other; every one of them refers, in at least some
contexts, to slightly different versions of the framework and, as we
shall see, the differences can be cumulative and therefore ultimately
quite significant. On the other hand, the boundaries or, if i may be
permitted the pun, 'barriers' between the stages defined by the various
labels are quite fuzzy. Thus, while there are some definite differences
of approach between late-80's style PPA and early-90's style Minimality,
Alec Marantz, in a recent paper on the 'Minimality Program', refers to it
as 'this latest version of Chomsky's Principles and Parameters approach',
clearly implying that at least in his mind Minimality is basically just a
revision of PPA.
But one needs to be aware of all these different labels, because some pro-
ponents of the framework under discussion feel very strongly about one
label or another. I have had the experience of being myself surrounded by
people who are accustomed to calling it 'GB' and having a reviewer complain
of my passing use of that label, 'NOBODY calls it that anymore!', and on the
other hand of having a reviewer complain of my usage of the abbreviation
'PPA' on the grounds that hann had never before encountered it. I'm afraid
it is occasionally useful, at the beginning of a paper, to give all the
labels with which people might be familiar, assert their mutual (approxi-
mate) equivalence, and then explicitly pick one and use it consistently
throughout the rest of the paper.
So much for what the damn thing is called. In my next posting, we will
start getting down to what it claims and how it works.
Best,
Steven
---------------------
Dr. Steven Schaufele
712 West Washington
Urbana, IL 61801
217-344-8240
fcosws@prairienet.org
**** O syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum! ***
*** Nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis! ***