‘Core’ and ‘Periphery’ in Historical Perspective

John E. Joseph
University of Maryland
Summary

This article traces the changing fortunes of Chomsky’s concepts of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’, from the beginnings of Government and Binding Theory in the late 1970s to the incipient minimalism of the early 1990s. Ten different characterizations of core and periphery are found in Chomsky’s work of the period, which alternatively questions the need for the distinction and promotes it to central theoretical status. Core and periphery are found to pertain to several different conceptual and phenomenological levels: universality, systematicity, typology, and historicity. Furthermore, they covertly recapitulate some of the oldest dichotomies of linguistic thought: nature/convention, analogy/anomaly, synchronic/diachronic, and marked/unmarked. The conclusions reached support recent changes in the theory which greatly reduce the prominence of the core/periphery distinction.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Baker, C[arl] L[eroy]
1991 “The Syntax of English not: The limits of core grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 22.387–429.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982 On the Generative Enterprise. A discussion with Riny Huybregts & Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986a Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1986b Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 “Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation”. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar ed. by Robert Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik
1977 “Filters and Control”. Linguistic Inquiry 8.425–504.Google Scholar
Droste, Flip G. & John E. Joseph
eds. 1991 Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description: Nine current approaches. (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 75.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy & Talbot J. Taylor
1989 Landmarks in Linguistic Thought. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E.
1987 Review of La notion de «marque» chez Trubetzkoy et Jakobson by Michel Viel (Paris: Didier 1984) Language 63.665–668.Google Scholar
1990a “Ideologizing Saussure: Bloomfield’s and Chomsky’s readings of the Cours de linguistique générale ”. Ideologies of Language ed. by John E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 51–78. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1990b “The Abandonment of nomos in Greek Linguistic Thought”. Historiographia Linguistica 17.1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kean, Mary-Louise
1975 The Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. Konrad
1989 “Jacob Grimm’s Place in the Foundation of Linguistics as a Science”. Practicing Linguistic Historiography: Selected essays, 303–323. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1986 Linguistic Theory in America. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press. (First ed. 1980.)Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20.365–424.Google Scholar