Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals
Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals
复制标题
句法共性的参数与功能解释
DOI：
10.1075/la.132.04has
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Martin Haspelmath
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martin Haspelmath
本文将生成原理和参数的方法比较了将句法普遍性解释为功能类型方法，并讨论了最佳理论的中间方法。它确定了生成参数解释和功能解释之间的一些基本差异。最重要的是，生成的解释假设跨语言概括是由于先天普遍的语法引起的，而功能解释则假定语言结构可以通过语言使用的规律来影响语言的规律。尽管存在这些差异，但两种跨语言相似性和差异的方法似乎都以相似的视野为指导：一旦一个人挖出表面以下（大型载体或整体类型），语言的浅表结构多样性就可以减少到几种基本模式。不幸的是，这种还原主义构造的证据从来都不是很好，因此，最近，发电论者和功能主义者都将他们的利益从这些雄心勃勃的目标中转移了出来。但是，我认为有一种类型的跨语言概括，存在很好的经验证据：与突出量表有关的内域普遍性，其中大多数在处理难度方面在功能上很直接地解释。 1。简介：可观察到的普遍性的相关性许多生成和功能性语言学家在理解语言之间的结构相似性和差异方面具有主要兴趣。显然，观察到的语言结构仅代表逻辑上可能的结构的一小部分，对于整个句法领域而言，语言学家对结构变化的限制（即句法普遍性）有一个很好的初始了解。但是，为什么在选择其结构时应以这些特殊的方式限制语言呢？生成性和功能性语言学家对这个问题给出了非常不同的答案，但是这些答案很少相互比较，而且大多数语言学家对这两个研究计划的方法论基础的差异却没有很好地理解。本文旨在阐明这种情况。我不会试图掩盖我对功能方法的个人偏爱，但我将重点介绍两种方法的优点和缺点。我应该从一开始就注意到，解释语言普遍性的目的通常不被视为生成研究的主要目标。以下引号是典型的：
This paper compares the generative principles-and-parameters approach to explaining syntactic universals to the functional-typological approach and also discusses the intermediate approach of Optimality Theory. It identifies some fundamental differences between generative parametric explanations and functional explanations. Most importantly, generative explanations assume that cross-linguistic generalizations are due to the innate Universal Grammar, whereas functional explanations assume that language structure can be influenced by regularities of language use through language change. Despite these differences, both approaches to cross-linguistic similarities and differences seem to be guided by a similar vision: That the superficial structural diversity of languages can be reduced to a few basic patterns once one digs below the surface (macroparameters or holistic types). Unfortunately, the evidence for such reductionist constructs has never been very good, so more recently both generativists and functionalists have shifted their interests away from these ambitious goals. However, I argue that there is one type of cross-linguistic generalization for which there is very good empirical evidence: intra-domain universals relating to prominence scales, most of which are straightforwardly explained functionally in terms of processing difficulty. 1. Introduction: the relevance of observable universals Many generative and functional linguists share a primary interest in understanding structural similarities and differences between languages. It is clear that the observed language structures represent only a tiny fraction of the logically possible structures, and for a whole range of syntactic domains linguists have a good initial idea of what the limits on structural variation (i.e. the syntactic universals) are. But why should languages be limited in these particular ways in choosing their structures? Generative and functional linguists have given very different answers to this question, but these answers are rarely compared to each other, and the differences in the methodological foundations of the two research programmes are not well understood by most linguists. The present paper aims to elucidate this situation. I will not attempt to hide my personal preference for the functional approach, but I will highlight strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. I should note at the outset that the goal of explaining language universals is not usually taken as the main goal of generative research. The following quotation is typical:
激进的专业下降和代词的形态
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Neeleman A
通讯作者：
Neeleman A