Abstract
Since its inception, the generative programme has been concerned with issues centering around the knowledge of language, hence contributing to the development of what has been termed the cognitive revolution. Among the significant issues addressed are the following:
-
(a)
what is the nature of linguistic knowledge?
-
(b)
what is the origin (or source) of this knowledge?
-
(c)
how is this language used?
Humans, unlike other creatures, can attain knowledge of languages like English, Japanese, or Arabic. It is reasonable to take this knowledge to represent a real state of the mind/brain, or a mental ‘organ’ with a specific structure and properties. Linguistic theory shares with other cognitive sciences the view that a number of characteristics of the mind/brain can be approached as computational systems, with rules forming and modifying representations, and used to execute actions or interpretations. By studying natural languages, generative grammarians have contributed to clarifying the nature of the systems of knowledge, belief, understanding, interpretation, etc., and helped to develop elaborate formal and computational systems (see Chomsky, 1986a, and 1989b and c).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Plato’s problem is the following: ‘why do we know so much, given that we have such limited evidence?’ A similar question has also been raised by Bertrand Russell. The poverty of stimulus (that is, the fact that the language learner faces in his environment only very limited linguistic experience, yet he manages to `learn’ all the properties of his language) is behind most generative apporaches to UG.
Some psychologists, by contrast, defend the view that humans acquire language by using `generalized learning’ mechanisms or `overlearning’. Language is conceived as a system of habitual dispositions, which is covered by available experience. Producing or interpreting new forms is effected by analogy. The problem of the poverty of stimulus, however, shows that overlearning cannot be the correct approach. See Chomsky (1986a and 1989b).
The position of Chomsky (1966) with respect to traditional thought has often been misinterpreted as acknowledging that our ancestors are precursors of modern scientific issues, and that the medieval issues are directly relevant to modern linguistic thought. I interpret that position as a weak compromise, aiming mainly to rehabilitate (globally) previous research in the field, against the attacks of structuralists. This cannot mean, however, confusing the conceptual, methodological, and empirical aims of different traditions and schools.
Chomsky characterizes Orwell’s problem as follows: `why do we know so little given that we have so much evidence?’ The pure traditionalist position, which is strong in the Arab world, is often one of the greatest obstacles to knowledge. According to this view, only ancestors `know’ in the first place, and only they have the right answers.
This view contrasts with lexicalist views, which require lexical entries to be fully expanded, and hence to contain redundant information. Cf. Halle (1973), Jackendoff (1975), and Bresnan (1982a) on the matter and, for a criticism, see Chapter 2.
Chomsky (1986a), following a suggestion by Aoun, proposes deriving the Case Filter from the Visibilty Condition given in (i): (i) An NP position which is the head of a chain (i.e. the last position of a moved category) can only bear a theta-index if it receives Case.
An SNLLT reviewer has pointed out that the conditions in (33) apply equally to movement as adjunction (in some cases vacuously). This observation appears to be true, although the derivation of these constraints differs depending on which type of movement is involved. For example, a substitution which involves the Comp position violates the Theta Criterion, but an adjunction to the same position does not (as far as I can tell)3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fehri, A.F. (1993). Principles, Parameters, and Modules. In: Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4228-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1986-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive