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! ***