On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer

Newmeyer (2004) argues that the notion of parameter of Universal Grammar has no role to play in accounting for cross-linguistic differences in syntax, and that, instead, “language-particular differences are captured by differences in language-particular rules” (183). He tries to show that parameter-approaches “have failed to live up to their promise” (181) and that “the hopeful vision of UG as providing a small number of principles each admitting of a small number of parameter settings is simply not workable” (185). In this paper, we defend the principles-and-parameters model of crosslinguistic variation. We propose that Newmeyer’s arguments against it are based on misunderstandings either of theory or of data, are conceptually misconceived, illogical or simply false. The rule-based alternative he suggests is hard to evaluate, since few actual instances of it are offered, and none is discussed in any detail. In a couple of instances that Newmeyer discusses, his rule-based account is a notational variant of a parameterbased theory. In other cases it represents a retreat to observational adequacy. The first part of the paper replies to Newmeyer’s critique of parameters (his pp. 198-215). The second part demonstrates an example of the efficacy of the parameter-based approach, drawing on work by Platzack and Holmberg on Scandinavian.