Sintaxia eta sintaxiaren evoluzioa ulertzeko ez dugu relevanteki behar biologiarik, baizik logikarik

1996 urtean, Chomsky hizkuntzalariak, elkarrizketa batean, ematen zituen ondorengo erantzunak:

OMNI: How would you assess current research about universal grammar?

CHOMSKY: In the last three or four years there's been a major conceptual change in the underlying theory. We now assume that universal grammar consists of a collection of preprogrammed subsystems that include, for example, one responsible for meaning, another responsible for stringing together phrases in a sentence, a third one that deals, among other things, with the kinds of relationships between nouns and pronouns that I discussed earlier. And there are a number of others.

These subsystems are not genetically preprogrammed down to the last detail. If they were, there would be only one human language. But heredity does set rather narrow limits on the possible ways that the rules governing each subsystem's function can vary. Languages like English and Italian, for example, differ in their choice of genetically permitted variations that exist as options in the universal grammar. You can think of these options as a kind of linguistic menu containing mutually exclusive grammatical possibilities.

For example, languages like Italian have chosen the "null subject" option from the universal-grammar menu. In Italian you can say "left" when you mean "He left" or "She left." English and French have passed up this option and chosen instead a rule that requires explicit mention of the subject.

OMNI: What are some other grammatical options on the universal-grammar menu?

CHOMSKY: In English the most important element in every major grammatical category comes first in its phrase. In simple sentences, for example, we say John hit Bill, not John Bill hit. With adjectives we say proud of John, not John of proud; with nouns we say habit of drinking wine, not drinking wine of habit, and with prepositions we say to John, not John to. Because heads of grammatical categories always come first, English is what is called a head-initial language.

Japanese is a head-final language. In Japanese you say John Bill hit. And instead of prepositions, there are postpositions that follow nouns: John to, rather than to John. So here's another parameter the child's got to leam from experience: Is the language head-initial or head-final?

These grammatical parameters are interconnected. You can't pick them any more freely than, say, a wine fanatic who insists on white wine with fish and red wine with meat is free to choose any main dish once he's decided on his wine. But grammars are even more sensitive than this culinary example might suggest. A slight change in just one of the universal grammar's parameters can have enormous repercussions throughout the language. It can produce an entirely different language.

Again, there's a close parallel to embryology, where a slight shift in the gene mechanisms regulating growth may be all that separates a fertilized egg from developing into a lion rather than a whale.

OMNI: So what exactly would you say is the grammar of English?

CHOMSKY: The grammar of English is the collection of choices -head-initial rather than head-final, and null subject forbidden, for example- that define one of a limited number of genetically permitted selections from the universal-grammar menu of grammatical options. And of course there are all the lexical facts. You just have to learn your language's vocabulary. The universal grammar doesn't tell you that tree means "tree" in English. But once you've learned the vocabulary items and fixed the grammatical parameters for English, the whole system is in place. And the general principles genetically programmed into the language organ just churn away to yield all the particular facts about English grammar.

OMNI: It sounds as if your present research goal is to reach the point where you can define every human language's grammar simply by specifying its choices from the universal grammar's menu of options.

CHOMSKY: That's the kind of work you would hope would soon be done: to take a theory of universal grammar, fix the parameters one way or another, and then deduce from these parameters the grammar of a real human language—Japanese, Swahili, English, or whatnot.

This goal is not on the horizon. But I think that it is within our conceptual grasp. Undoubtedly the principles of universal grammar that we currently theorize are wrong. It would be a miracle if we were right this early along. But the principles are of the right type, and we can now begin to test our present system with complex examples to see what is wrong and to make changes that will improve our theory. . . .

Kontuan har, gainera, ezen Chomsky-ren hitzetan, gramatika universala (universal grammar) dá hau:

It is the sum total of all the immutable principles that heredity builds into the language organ. These principles cover grammar, speech sounds, and meaning.

Hatsarreak eta parametroak teoria chomskyarraren arabera, pertsonok jaiotzez dakartzagu inkorporaturik hatsarre linguistiko aldaezin eta hereditario batzuk zeinen natura dén biologikoa, eta ez logikoa (Chomsky-k dixit):

Let us define "universal grammar" (UG) as the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages not merely by accident but by necessity -of course, I mean biological, not logical, necessity. Thus UG can be taken as expressing "the essence of human language." UG will be invariant among humans. UG will specify what language learning must achieve, if it takes place successfully. ... . What is learned, the cognitive structure attained, must have the properties of UG, though it will have other properties as well, accidental properties. Each human language will conform to UG; languages will differ in other, accidental properties.

Hortaz eta sintaxiari dagokionez, hatsarre biologiko horiek (eta ez logiko baina bai ordea aldaezin, eta gainera espezie-ezaugarri) ez dute guztiz gobernatzen eta determinatzen sintaxia (bestela, hizkuntza bakarra egonen baitzen) zeren, gramatika universal horretan, existitzen dira aukera edo menu-suerte batzuk, zeini deitzen dién "parametroak", eta zein diren nola interruptoreak zeinen posizioa finkatzen dén noiz umea hási entzuten hizkuntza konkreturen bat (interruptore horiek izango lituzketé aukera bateraezin edo exkluienteak). Horrela, behinda umeak inkórporatu aukera parametriko horiek an bere hatsarre-sistema, eta behin hiztegia ikasitakoan, amaiturik izanen da hizkuntzaren ikasketa-prozesua.

Hori guztia akaso izan liteke teoria imaginatibo eta sinpatikoa baldin handik ez balitz segituko ezen aukera parametriko horiek (adibidez, hitz-hurrenkera) ez direla baizik aukera funtzionalki inozenteak, akzidentalak, anekdotikoak eta azalekoak, zeren justuki inozentzia funtzional hori dá teoria chomskyarraren gabezia fundamentala, zulo bat non erortzen dirén adibidez gure esperantzak ki azaldu zergátik hizkuntzen historian zehar, oro har, hautatzen dirén gerota parametro "head-first" gehiago, bitárten "head-last"-ak aukeratzen dirén gerota gutxiago. Izan ere, parametro-aldaketa horiek ez dirá inondik inora akzidentalak edo anekdotikoak, baizik ze apuntatzen ari dira an norabidea on garapen humano-komunikatiboa, zeinen azaltzerako, behar dugún eredu bat non konsidera daitezén funtzionaltasuna eta logika komunikatiboa (zein izan behar dirén osagarri fundamentalak an edozein teoria zek nahi du azaldu zergátik sintaxiak dirén nola diren, eta ez bestela).

Izan ere, funtzionaltasuna eta logika komunikatiboa dirá motoreak zek mugiarazten dute sintaxiaren evoluzioa aldé estadio sintaktiko garatuagoak, ahaltsuagoak, .... eta horregatixe dira elementu gakoak afin ulértu bai sintaxia bera eta baita sintaxiaren evoluzioa. Baina teoria chomskyarrean ez dira konsideratzen halako kontzeptuak nola funtzionaltasuna eta logika komunikatiboa, eta horregatik teoria hori dá teoria radikalki interesgabea, esan nahi baita haruntzago ti bere interes anektotikoa. Sintaxia eta sintaxiaren evoluzioa ulertzeko ez dugu relevanteki behar biologiarik, baizik logikarik.

Nola genioen hemen:

Ikus honako hau (Xabier Artiagoitia, "Hatsarreak eta parametroak lantzen", 2000:31):

(21) Hitz hurrenkeraren parametroa (lehen hurbilketa):
a. Hizkuntzek O-V ordena bezala finkatzen dute parametroa; edo
b. Hizkuntzek V-O ordena bezala finkatzen dute parametroa.

Hizkuntzalaritza ortodoxoaren teorian, bi sintaxi-modu edo parametro horiek era inozentean aurkezten dira, nola bailiran ezaugarri hutsalak zein ez doazen haratago ti azaleko kasuistika anekdotiko eta arbitrario bat. Praktika burugogorrean ordea, aditzak dira nola iman irregularrak, ez baitute alde guztietarik indar berdina osagarriak itsasten: izan ere, eta arrazoi komunikatiboengatik, aditzak dirá askoz indartsuagoak eskuinetik ezenez ezkerretik, eta hortik desegiten da ha falazia formala on paralelismoa artén hizkuntza burulehenak eta buruazkenak (prepositiboak eta postpositiboak), zein dén dogma artén hizkuntzalari ortodoxoak (heterodoxo samarrik ere bada, hala nola Bittor Hidalgo). Baina, paralelismo hori soilik da formala; ez, inondik inora, funtzionala.

Hortaz azpimarratu behar da ze, komunikazioaren ikuspuntutik, OV/VO azaleko parametro hori ez dela batere inozentea, esan nahi baita ez dela batere azalekoa.[Artiagoitia, 2000:31]

Sintaxiari dagokionez, teoria chomskyarra dabíl radikalki oker, zeren ez baitu konsideratzen funtzionaltasuna eta logika komunikatiboa afin explíkatu bai sintaxia bera eta baita sintaxiaren evoluzioa. Horrek teoriak, gainera, bultzatzen du itsukeria artén hizkuntzalariak, zein, oro har, agertzen dirén guztiz akritiko respektu realidade bat zein dén hain gardena nola antipatikoa. [62] [>>>]