Bore r (1984) also argued that variation is limited to functional lexical elements,
the so-called Borer-Chomsky conjecture. Although parameters are embedded
in principles in the P&P approach, they are separated here. Parameters are
recaptured through variation in the features of functional lexical categories,
while principles/operations are applied with considerations of interface condi-
tions and of computational effi ciency. Under this approach, the narrow syntax
operations are further simplifi ed and universalized.
The shift to a more restricted minimalist design of the narrow syntax is
motivated not only by (the scientifi cally standard) adherence to Occam’s razor,
but also from an evolutionary perspective. Choms ky (2005) hypothesizes that
not enough time has elapsed to allow for the gradual evolution of a highly
complicated UG. If recursive Merge is the defi ning mutation that endowed
modern humans with the infi nite capacity (the simplest and seemingly unavoid-
able assumption), then, as Chomsky notes, it (recursion) could not have devel-
oped gradually (a system either is or is not recursive), and the historical record,
impoverished as it is, seems to indicate that the defi ning moment occurred as
part of the (so-called) Great Leap forward approx. 75Kya, a split-second before
the present time, in evolutionary terms. Thus, there is a convergence between
principles of normal explanation-seeking science adhering to Occam’s razor and
the empirical demands of explaining the (known) facts regarding human linguistic
evolution; both demand simplicity (for different reasons). While UG becomes
as minimal as possible, we confront the ‘opposing’ issue of how linguistic
variation – a form of complexity – which has been captured under syntactic
parameters, can be recaptured by appeal to the lexicon. The next section discusses
this issue by focusing on three factors argued in Chomsky (2 005) and clarifi es
how these three factors contribute to the expression of linguistic variation.
2 Three factors and language variation: variation
in externalization
Chomsky (2 005) outlines how the following three factors determine the nature
of human I-languages.
(1) a. Genetic endowment
b. Experience
c. Principles not specifi c to the faculty of language
The fi rst factor, genetic endowment, is the species-specifi c UG. The second
factor, experience, is exposure (of UG) to the PLD, which triggers variation
in internalized I-languages. (Importantly, as we will discuss below, the second
factor is not exactly an independent factor – that is “Experience” is a relational
notion, and the experiences one can have are delimited by one’s genetic endow-
ment. The experiences one does have are determined not only by genetics,
delimiting the class of “possible human experiences”, but by countless other
factors infl uencing human history, physics, social norms, traffi c accidents, and
Eliminating parameters from narrow syntax 129