Download ppt - Arizona State University

Generative Grammar and Historical
Linguistics: what cycles tell us
Elly van Gelderen
Oslo, 9 August 2013
International Conference on
Historical Linguistics XXI
Outline
A. Generative (Historical) Linguistics
B. The healthy tension between generative
grammar and historical linguistics, in both
directions
C. The Minimalist Program and how it is
conducive to looking at gradual,
unidirectional change.
D. Examples of Linguistic Cycles
E. Explanations and some challenges.
Model of language acquisition/change
(based on Andersen 1973)
Generation n
UG
+
experience
=
I-language n
Generation n+1
UG
+
experience n
=
I-language n+1
E-language n
+ innovations
E-language n+1
Internal Grammar
Reanalysis is crucial
(1) Paul said, "Starting would be a good thing to
do. How would you like to begin?“ (COCA 2010
Fiction) (cartoon is on Handout)
As for the tension:
Introspection vs text
Generative syntax has typically relied on
introspective data.
For historical periods, such a method of data
gathering is obviously impossible.
Generative grammar places much emphasis
on the distinction between competence
and performance, i.e. on I(nternal)- and
E(xternal)-language.
Currently: use of corpora
Since the 1990s, a group of generative linguists
has worked on the creation of parsed corpora
(see http://www.ling.upenn.edu/histcorpora/).
Result: much better descriptions of changes in the
word order (e.g. work by Pintzuk, Haeberli,
Taylor, van Kemenade and others), changes in
do-support (e.g. Kroch and Ecay), Adverb
Placement (Haeberli, van Kemenade, and Los),
and pro drop (Walkden).
Corpus work has reinvigorated Historical
Linguistics.
And change can be seen as unidirectional
and gradual
Newmeyer (1998: 237); Roberts & Roussou (2003:
2) and others: “grammaticalization is a regular
case of parameter change … [and]
epiphenomenal”, i.e. all components also occur
independently.
Others, e.g. van Gelderen (2004; 2011), argue that
the unidirectional patterns that are shown by
grammaticalization can be `explained’: the child
reanalyzes the input in a certain way. This is
where cycles come in!
Current internal questions
The role of UG:
Language-specific or third factor or prelinguistic?
The role of features:
semantic ones innate?
Is change gradual or abrupt?
Most functionalist explanations assume it is
gradual whereas many formal accounts
think it is abrupt.
Early generative approaches emphasize a
catastrophic reanalysis of both the
underlying representation and the rules
applying to them. Lightfoot, for instance,
argues that the category change of modals
is an abrupt one from V to AUX, as is the
change from impersonal to personal verbs
(the verb lician changing in meaning from
`please’ to `like’).
How to see the role of UG?
In the 1960s, UG consists of substantive
universals, concerning universal
categories (V, N, etc) and phonological
features, and formal universals relating to
the nature of rules. The internalized
system is very language-specific.
“[S]emantic features ..., are presumably
drawn from a universal ‘alphabet’”
(Chomsky 1965: 142), “little is known
about this today”.
Principles and Parameters of the
1980s/1990s
Headedness parameter
OV to VO
Inventory of Functional Categories
C-oriented (V2) to T-oriented
Verb-movement
Pro-drop
1990s-2013
Parameters now consist of choices of
feature specifications as the child acquires
a lexicon (Chomsky 2004; 2007).
Baker, while disagreeing with this view of
parameters, calls this the Borer-ChomskyConjecture (2008: 156):
"All parameters of variation are attributable
to differences in the features of particular
items (e.g., the functional heads) in the
lexicon."
Shift
With the shift to parametric parameters, it
becomes possible to think of gradual
change through reanalysis as well (e.g.
Roberts 2009 and van Gelderen 2009).
Word order change in terms if features e.g.
Breitbarth 2012, Biberauer & Roberts
(2008).
The set of features that are available to the
learner is determined by UG.
Features and grammaticalization
Another minimalist approach using features,
not concerned with word order, can be
found in van Gelderen (2004; 2010) who
argues that grammaticalization can be
understood as a change from semantic to
formal features.
For instance, a verb with semantic features,
such as Old English will with [volition,
expectation, future], can be reanalyzed as
having only the grammatical feature
[future].
Cycles tell us which features matter
Subject and Object Agreement (Givón)
demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zero
noun > first and second person > agreement > zero
noun > noun marker > agreement > zero
Copula Cycle (Katz)
demonstrative > copula > zero
third person > copula > zero
verb > aspect > copula
Noun Cycle (Greenberg)
demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zero
noun > number/gender > zero
Negative Cycle (Jespersen)
a negative argument > negative adverb > negative
particle > zero
b verb > aspect > negative > C
(negative polarity cycle: Willis)
CP Cycle
Adjunct AP/PP > ... > C
Future and Aspect Auxiliary
A/P > M > T (> C)
V > ASP
Cycles in all 3 layers of the clause
CP
C’
C
TP
T’
Neg
TMA
T
vP
v’
v
...
Stages: VP argument > adverb > higher
position
Cycle is an old idea: Bopp (1816) and
von der Gabelentz (1901)
Nun bewegt sich die Geschichte der
Sprachen in der Diagonale zweier Kräfte:
des Bequemlichkeitstriebes, der zur
Abnutzung der Laute führt, und des
Deutlichkeitstriebes, der jene Abnutzung
nicht zur Zerstörung der Sprache ausarten
lässt. Die Affixe verschleifen sich,
verschwinden am Ende spurlos; ihre
Funktionen aber oder ähnliche drängen
wieder nach Ausdruck.
ctd
Diesen Ausdruck erhalten sie, nach der
Methode der isolierenden Sprachen, durch
Wortstellung oder verdeutlichende Wörter.
Letztere unterliegen wiederum mit der Zeit dem
Agglutinationsprozesse, dem Verschliffe und
Schwunde, und derweile bereitet sich für das
Verderbende neuer Ersatz vor ... ; immer gilt das
Gleiche: die Entwicklungslinie krümmt sich
zurück nach der Seite der Isolation, nicht in die
alte Bahn, sondern in eine annähernd parallele.
Darum vergleiche ich sie der Spirale. (von der
Gabelentz 1901: 256)
The history of language moves in the diagonal of
two forces: the impulse toward comfort, which
leads to the wearing down of sounds, and
that toward clarity, which disallows this
erosion and the destruction of the language.
The affixes grind themselves down, disappear
without a trace; their functions or similar ones,
however, require new expression. They acquire
this expression, by the method of isolating
languages, through word order or clarifying
words. The latter, in the course of time, undergo
agglutination, erosion, and in the mean time
renewal is prepared: periphrastic expressions
are preferred ... always the same: the
development curves back towards isolation, not
in the old way, but in a parallel fashion. That's
why I compare them to spirals.
Comfort + Clarity =
Grammaticalization + Renewal
Von der Gabelentz’ examples of comfort:
the unclear pronunciation of everyday
expressions,
the use of a few words instead of a full
sentence, i.e. ellipsis (p. 182-184),
“syntaktische Nachlässigkeiten aller Art”
(`syntactic carelessness of all kinds’, p.
184),
and loss of gender.
Von der G’s examples of clarity
special exertion of the speech organs (p. 183),
“Wiederholung” (`repetition’, p. 239),
periphrastic expressions (p. 239),
replacing words like sehr `very’ by more powerful
and specific words such as riesig `gigantic’ and
schrecklich `frightful’ (243),
using a rhetorical question instead of a regular
proposition,
and replacing case with prepositions (p. 183).
Grammaticalization = one step
Hopper & Traugott 2003: content item >
grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix.
The loss in phonological content is not a
necessary consequence of the loss of semantic
content (see Kiparsky 2011; Kiparsky &
Condoravdi 2006; Hoeksema 2009).
Kiparsky (2011: 19): “in the development of case,
bleaching is not necessarily tied to
morphological downgrading from postposition to
clitic to suffix.” Instead, unidirectionality is the
defining property of grammaticalization and any
exceptions to the unidirectionality (e.g. the
Spanish inflectional morpheme –nos changing to
a pronoun) are instances of analogical changes.
Renewal is the other step
In acknowledging weakening of pronunciation (“un
affaiblissement de la pronunciation”), Meillet (1912:
139) writes that what provokes the start of the
(negative) cycle is the need to speak forcefully (“le
besoin de parler avec force”).
Kiparsky & Condoravdi (2006) similarly suggest
pragmatic and semantic reasons. A simple negative
cannot be emphatic; in order for a negative to be
emphatic, it needs to be reinforced, e.g. by a
minimizer.
Four cycles I will mention/look at
Negative Cycles
negative argument > negative adverb > negative
particle > zero
negative verb > auxiliary > negative > zero
Subject Agreement Cycle
demonstrative/emphatic > pronoun > agreement > zero
Copula Cycles
demonstrative/verb/adposition > copula > zero
Nominal Cycles
demonstrative > article/copula/tense marker
noun > gender/number marker
Two kinds of Negative Cycles
Indefinite phrase > negative = Jespersen’s Cycle.
See EyÞórrson (2002) about ON ne; Bondi Johannessen (2000)
and Sollid (2002) about modern stages.
(1)
er
hjör né
rýðr
Old Norse
that sword not
redden
`that do not redden a sword.' (Fáfnismál 24)
(2)
Þat
mæli
ek
eigi
that say-1S
I
not
`I am not saying that.’ (Njalssaga, 219, Faarlund 2004: 225)
(3)
Trøtt...jeg? Ha'kke tid
Norwegian
tired ... me? have-not time
`Me, tired? I don't have the time.’ (google)
(4)
USA bør ikke ALDRIG være et forbilde ...
The US should not never) be an example ...’ (google)
Verb > negative
(5)
is-i
ba-d-o
Koorete
she-NOM disappear-PF-PST
`She disappeared' (Binyam 2007: 7).
(6) ‘is-i
dana
‘ush-u-wa-nni-ko
she-NOM beer drink-PRS-not.exist-3FS-FOC
‘She does (will) not drink beer.’ (Binyam 2007:
9).
but also Chinese mei < `not exist’ ... and S Min
(Yang 2009)
Fail to ... (in COHA)
Neg Cycle in terms of structure
NegP
Neg’
Neg
ne
VP
V
DP/AP
no thing
Please see (2) on Handout and then (1) for more
detail.
and in terms of features
DP in the VP
semantic
> Head Neg
> [uF]
>
>
Specifier of NegP
[iF]
>
>
negative affix
[uF]
and then renewal is needed from another
lexical element
The Subject Cycle
A. demonstrative > third person pronoun >
clitic > agreement
B. noun/oblique pronoun > first/second pron
> clitic > agreement
"agreement and pronominalization ... Are
fundamentally one and the same
phenomenon“ (Givón 1978: 151).
Just a few examples
The Basque verbal prefixes n-, g-, z- are identical to the
pronouns ni ‘I’, gu ‘we’, and zu ‘you.’ (Gavel & HenriLacombe 1929-37),
As early as the 19th century, Proto Indo-European verbal
endings -mi, si, -ti are considered to arise from pronouns
(e.g. Bopp 1816).
Hale (1973: 340): in Pama-Nyungan inflectional markers
are derived from independent pronouns: “the source of
pronominal clitics in Walbiri is in fact independent
pronouns”.
Mithun (1991): Iroquoian agreement markers derive from
Proto-Iroquoian pronouns
Haugen (2004: 319): Nahuatl agreement markers derive
from pronouns.
Tunica prefixes:
Ɂi- [1S],
Ɂu- [3SM],
pronouns:
Ɂima,
Ɂu'wi,
wi-[2SM],
hi-/ he-[2SF],
ti- [3SF]
ma',
hɛ'ma,
ti'hči (Haas 1946: 346-7)
Donohue (2005): Palu’e, a Malayo-Polynesian language of
Indonesia: no agreement but the first person aku can be
cliticized.
(1) ‘úwa
>
‘úwa >
-‘ú
Ute
demonstrative
pronoun
article/agreement
invis-animate
(Givón 2011)
(2)
Shi diné bizaad
yíní-sh-ta'
Navajo
I
Navajo language
3-1-study
‘As for me, I am studying Navajo.’
Noun/NP > pronoun
(1) Vossa mercê > Vosmecê > (V)ocê > cê
BrPort
your favor/mercy
you
you-indefinite
cê is a clitic:, only in subject position and pre-V
(see Mattoso Câmara 1979; Gonçalves 1987; Dutra
1991, cited in Vitral & Ramos 2006)
(2) Vuestra merced > vuesarced > vuace/vusted > usted
See also Helmbrecht (2005) on politeness pronouns in
e.g. Icelandic:
S
P
S-fam S-hon
P-fam P-hon
þú
þér
>
þú
þér
þið
þér
Some stages
Japanese, Mauwake, Urdu/Hindi: full pronoun
(1) watashi-wa kuruma-o unten-suru kara.
I-TOP
car-ACC drive-NONPST PRT
‘I will drive the car'. (Yoko Matsuzaki p.c.)
(2) Ni
fain=ke
ekap-eka!
2P
this-CFoc come-IMP.2P
`You here, come!’ (Berghäll 2010: 81)
(3) ham log `we people‘
(4) mẽy or merii behn doonõ dilii mẽy rehtee hẽ
I and my sister both Delhi in living are
Bislama: 1s/2s (3p) vs rest
(Meyerhoff 1997)
(1) (hem) i
no talem long ol
sambodi
she
PRT NEG tell to
P
somebody
`She doesn’t tell anyone.’ (Meyerhoff 145)
(2) be yumi bae i no save stopem maot blong yu
but 1P(incl) IRR PRT NEG can stop mouth of you
`but we can’t close your mouth.’ (M 151)
(3) bae
mi go spel
long Ambae
IRR
1S go holiday to
Ambae
`I should go spend the holidays on A.’ (149)
Interesting: i < he, so what features are kept?
Arabic pronouns and PF agreement
(table adapted from Albuhayri 2013)
Ɂanaa ‫أنا‬1S
naħnuُ‫ن َْحن‬1P
Ɂantaُ‫ت‬
َ ‫أ َ ْن‬2SM
Ɂantiُ‫أ َ ْنت‬2SF
Ɂantumaa‫أ َ ْنتما‬2PM
Ɂantunnaُ‫أ َ ْنتُّن‬2PF
Huwaُ‫هو‬3SM
َ
Hiyaُ‫هي‬3SF
َ
Hum‫هم‬3PM
Hunnaُ‫هن‬3PF
-tuُ‫ـت‬1S-naa‫ـنا‬1P
-taُ‫ـت‬2SM
َ
-tiُ‫ـت‬2SM
-tum‫ـتم‬2PM
-tunnaُ‫ـتن‬2PF
-(a) 3SM
-at 3sF
-wa/-uu/‫ـو‬3PM
-na‫ن‬
َُ -3PF
What’s clear
(a) First person changed in Arabic:
Akkadian
Arabic
Ethiopian Semitic
1S -(a)ku
-tu
-ku
2SM -(a)ta
-ta
-ka
(Dimmendaal 2011: 96, based on Hetzron
1976)
Akkadian differs in both vowel and
consonant and the other 2 branches kept
the vowel difference but neutralized the
consonantal distinction, in different ways.
(b) Third person has a different
development; only gender/number is
marked (Huehnergard & Pat-El 2012);
probably derives from nominal inflection
(Pat-El p.c).
Russell (1984: 119): first and second person
of the suffix conjugation are “clearly
related to the pronominal forms”; third
person has its origin in “the system of
nominal inflection and modification.”
What were the pronouns that
became the affixes?
Semitic free pronouns have a demonstrative
base: in- (Egyptian) and an- (Arabic) so
not clear that the affixes arose from them.
Perfective verbs could have been nominals.
Givón (1976: 183-4): personal endings in
Arabic first develop on the participial
(nominal) and the suffixes develop from
the inflected copulas.
Other challenges: Noun class/gender
markers
Where do they come from? nouns
First/second and third person split, e.g. Temne
Renewal on the nouns, e.g. in Zulu, bmo of preprefix
(1)
a-ba-ntu
ba-khona
PR-CL2-people
CL2-present
`The people are present.’
(Cope 1984: 16; Buell 2005: 8)
How do they end up as agreement and how come they are
so stable? Possibly loss on nouns in Chichewa.
Temne
In Temne (Hutchinson 1969), a West Atlantic member of
the Niger-Congo family spoken in Sierra Leone, the
class marker on the noun is also used on the verb as
agreement. (The class marker is specified on the noun
for definite, indefinite, singular, and plural but for only
singular or plural on the verb).
(1)
ɔ-tik
ɔ-fumpɔ
1def.S-stranger
1S-fell
`The stranger fell.’
First, second, and third person are not `doubly’ marked:
(2)
i/ɔ
fumpɔ
1S/3S fell
`I/he fell.’ (Hutchison 1969: 8; 11)
Noun class ctd
In Kenyang (Green & Tabe 2013), also from the West Atlantic branch
spoken in Cameroon: definiteness is not relevant, the noun-marker
differs from the third person pronoun and the verbal marker, and
first and second are more transparent:
Class word
gloss
1 n-sɛm
slave
2 ba-sɛm
slaves
3a a-tu
ear
4a ba-tu
ears
3b a-kwak
water snake
4b ba-kwak
water snakes
5 n-ti
head
6 ba-ti
heads
Classes 7-16 are not listed ...
pronoun
yi
βɔ
wu
βɔ
yɔ
βɔ
wu
βɔ
SM PF SM IMPF
à
ǎ
bá
bâ
à
ǎ
à
ǎ
à
ǎ
bá
bâ
à
ǎ
à
ǎ
First and second different, so later
independent
1S mé
2S wɔ̀
1P bɛ̀sɛ́
2P bèká
SM PF
SM IMPF
m̀ (or other nasal)
mɛ̌
ɔ̀
ɔ̌
sɛ́
ɛ̂
bà
ba
Main challenge: ....
English: in transition
(a) Modification, (b) coordination, (c) position,
(d) doubling, (e) loss of V-movement, (f) Code switching
Coordination (and Case)
(1)
Me and Kitty were to spend the day.
(2)
%while he and she went across the hall.
Position
(3)
She’s very good, though I perhaps I shouldn’t say
so.
(4)
You maybe you've done it but have forgotten.
Doubling and cliticization
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Me, I've tucking had it with the small place.
(BNC H0M 1608)
Me, I think I'd like a change. (COHA 2001. fiction)
%Him/Her, s/he shouldn’t do that (not
attested in COCA or BNC; once in COHA)
What I'm gonna do?
`What am I going to do'
CSE-FAC:
uncliticized
I
2037
you 1176
he
128
cliticized
685 (=25%)
162 (=12.1%)
19
(=12.9%)
total
2722
1338
147
Problem in English: why so slow!
French: Lambrecht 1981; Schwegler
1990; Fuß 2005
(1) Se je meïsme ne li di
Old French
If I myself not him tell
`If I don’t tell him myself.’ (Franzén
1939:20, Cligès 993)
(2) Renars respond: “Jou, je n’irai”
‘R answers “Me, I won’t go”.’
(Coronnement Renart, A. Foulet (ed.)
1929: 598, from Roberts 1993: 112)
Foulet (1961: 330): all personal pronouns can be separated
from the verb in Old French. Compare Modern French:
(3)a. *Je heureusement ai vu ça
I probably have seen that
`I’ve probably seen that.’
b. Kurt, heureusement, a fait beaucoup d'autres choses.
Kurt fortunately has done many other things
`Fortunately, Kurt did many other things’ (google search
of French websites)
(4)
Où
vas-tu
Standard French
where go-2S
(5)
tu
vas où
Colloquial French
2S
go
where ‘Where are you going?'
Loss of pre-verbal objects and ne
(6)
j'ai
pas encore démontré ça
I-have
NEGyet
proven that
‘I haven't yet proven that.’
Code-switching:
(7) nta tu vas travailler
Arabic-French
you you go work
‘You go to work.’ (from Bentahila and
Davies 1983: 313)
Subject Cycle
Full phrase move to Spec TP >
Head moves to T
Reanalysis as to what the head is: pronoun
or agreement.
Once the pronoun is agreement, a new
pro/nonominal is needed.
Challenges: Niger-Congo and speed ...
As tree
TP
T’
.
T
VP
V’
DP
D
V
DP
with features
Adjunct/Argument >
emphatic/noun
[semantic]
>
>
Specifier >
full pronoun
[i-phi]
Head
weak/clitic
[u-1/2] [i-3]
affix
agreement
[u-phi]
[u-#]
See (3) and (4) on handout for more detail.
Copula cycle, sources
Verbs
Demonstratives
= Reanalysis of
Prepositions/adverbs location, identity,
and aspect features
English flavors: be, become, go, fall, turn, seem,
appear, stay, and remain.
semantic features
be
remain, stay
seem, appear
[location] [duration]
[visible]
[equal]
Demonstrative and adverbial source of
copulas
(1) a. Mi da i
tatá Saramaccan
I
am your father
‘I am your father.’ (McWhorter 1997: 87)
b. Hεn dà dí
Gaamá
he is
the chief
‘He's the chief.’ (McWhorter 1997: 98)
(2) Dí
wómi
dε a
wósu
the woman
is
at
house
`The woman is at home.’ (McWhorter 1997: 88)
Identification vs location
Saramaccan
equative
–
identificational da
class membership da/dɛ
locative
dɛ
(McWhorter 2005: 117-8; 171)
NigerianPidgin
be/na
(Mazzoli 2013)
-
de
Most have permanent/non-permanent distinction: zero vs
de in NigerianP
Structurally (see (6) on HO)
TP
T’
.
T
VP
DP
D
that V
V’
DP
Not everything is the agreement
cycle, e.g.Galo (Post 2007: 429)
(1) bɨɨ̀
ŋó-kə ̀
azèn
əə
3S
1S-GEN friend
ART →
3S
1S-GEN friend
COP
‘He is my friend.’ (Post 2007)
In Galo, əə functions as topic marker as well
as unmarked copula and derives from a
(proximal) demonstrative.
Zoque (Faarlund 2012: 141-2)
(2)
Te’ tuwi kanaŋbüde
te’ tuwi 0-kanaŋ=pü=te
DET dog 3B-old=REL=PRED
‘The dog is old’
Greenberg’s demonstrative to
article cycle
(1) demonstrative > definite article >
Case/non-generic > class marker > zero
(2) dumating ang=aso
arrive
NOM=dog `The dog arrived’
yung is taking over < iyon + ng from ang but
ang is more subjective so doesn’t quite fit
(3) ang=ganda=mo!
NOM=beautiful=2S `How beautiful you are’!
(Reid 1978; Nagaya 2007 [in TSL 96]:
change in Tagalog ang)
Demonstrative
[i-phi]/ [loc]
article
[u-phi]
Dem
C
copula
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-phi]
[loc]
[loc]
Also: degree adverb and tense marker (TibetoBurman) and noun class marker.
Old English: demonstratives, pronouns, and
pro-drop
(1) þæt fram ham gefrægn Higelaces þegn,
god mid Geatum, Grendles dæda; se wæs
moncynnes mægenes strengest on þæm
dæge þysses lifes, æþele ond eacen.
`Hygelac’s thane heard about Grendel’s
deeds while in Geatland; he (=Hygelac’s
thane) was mankind’s strongest man on
earth, noble and powerful.
Old English ctd
Het him yðlidan godne gegyrwan, cwæð, he
guðcyning ofer swanrade secean wolde,
mærne þeoden, þa him wæs manna
þearf. ðone siðfæt him snotere ceorlas
lythwon logon, þeah he him leof wære.
(He) ordered himself a good boat prepared
and said that he wanted to seek the king
over the sea since he (=the king) needed
men. Wise men did not stop him
(=Hygelac’s thane) though he was dear to
them.’ (Beowulf 194-98)
Three stages in the PC
(1) Brittene igland is ehta hund mila lang.
& twa hund brad. & her sind on þis
iglande fif geþeode. Englisc. & Brittisc.
& Wilsc. & Scyttisc. & Pyhtisc. & Boc
Leden.
`The island Britain is 800 miles long and
200 miles broad. And there are in the
island five nations; English, Welsh,
Scottish, Pictish, and Latin’. (omacl.org)
Still first stage
(2) Erest weron bugend þises landes
Brittes. þa coman of Armenia. & gesætan
suþewearde Bryttene ærost. þa gelamp
hit þæt Pyhtas coman suþan of Scithian.
mid langum scipum na manegum.
`The first inhabitants were the Britons, who
came from Armenia, and first peopled
Britain southward. Then happened it, that
the Picts came south from Scythia, with
long ships, not many’.
Transition
(3) Đis geares wæs se mynstre of
Cantwarabyri halgod fram þone
ærcebiscop Willelm þes dæies iiii Nonæ
MAI. Đær wæron þas biscopes...
`This year was the monastery of Canterbury
consecrated by the Archbishop William, on
the fourth day before the nones of May.
There were the Bishops ...’ (1130)
Dem > article
(4) ðis gære for þe king Stephne ofer sæ to
Normandi & ther wes underfangen forþi ðæt hi
uuenden ðæt he sculde ben alsuic alse the eom
wes. & for he hadde get his tresor. ac he todeld
it & scatered sotlice.
`This year, (the) King Stephen crossed the sea
to go to Normandy and was received there
because they thought he was like the uncle (i.e.
his uncle). And because he still had his treasury,
but he divided and scattered it stupidly. King
Henry has gathered much gold and silver and no
good did men with it for his soul.’ (PC 1137)
Around 1200: a reanalysis
(1) & gaddresst swa þe clene corn
`and so you gather the clear wheat.’ (Ormulum
1484-5, Holt edition)
(2) 3ho wass … Elysabæþ 3ehatenn
`She was called Elisabeth.’ (Ormulum 115)
(3) & swa þe33 leddenn heore lif Till þatt te33
wærenn alde
`and so they led their lives until they were old.’
(Ormulum 125-6)
(4) þin forrme win iss swiþe god, þin lattre win iss
bettre.
`Your earlier wine is very good, your later wine is
better.’ (Ormulum 15409)
Reduction of the article also in PC and
Ormulum, according to Nykiel
(5) 7
begæt thare priuileges, an of alle þe
And obtained their proviledges one of all the
lands of þabbotrice 7 oþer of þe lands ...
lands of the-abbey and other of the lands
‘and obtained their privileges, one for all the
lands of the abbey, and another for the lands
(that adjoin to the churchyard).’ (from Nykiel
2013 Peterborough Chron. an.1137)
What happens?
Externally: a `strengthening’ of the third
person features in the pronoun and a shift
in the relationship with the demonstrative.
This reinforcement through external
pronouns, she and they, brought about a
reanalysis of the features of the pronoun
as deictic.
Internal
se -->
the
him/her --> himself/herself
External
--> she
--> they
a.se/that
>
the
[loc]/[i-phi]
[u-ps]
b.he/hi is replaced by he
heo/ha is replaced by she
(possibly via seo)
hi/hie is replaced by they
Structure of the renewed pronoun
DP
D
s/he
PhiP
s/he
NP
Typical DP Cycle
DP
that
[loc]
[i-ps] D
>
D’
DP
D
the
NP [u-phi]
3S
NP
3S
Loss of Pro drop
Walkden 2011; 2012; van Gelderen 2000; 2013; Rusten
2010.
Starts with first and second person, e.g. Lindisfarne:
1S
9/212 (=96% overt pronouns)
2S
16/103 (=87%)
3S
445/116 (=21%)
(Berndt 1956)
First, the agreement features are reanalyzed from
interpretable to uninterpretable, with the inevitable result
that a subject becomes obligatory. This is a typical stage
in the subject cycle.
Secondly, pronouns and demonstratives undergo two types
of change, internal and external. The demonstratives
lose features in a grammaticalization process and
pronouns are renewed externally.
Noun > #
Lehmann (2002: 50-54, quoting Heine & Reh
1984: 273): 3 sources of nominal number
marking:
(a) from a noun, as with Chinese men meaning
`class’,
(b) from a pronoun, numeral, or quantifier
(c) from a numeral classifier: the classifier ge is the
main classifier now in spoken Mandarin and is
becoming used as singular, instead of yi-ge
`one-CL’ (Lehmann 2002: 54; see also Serzisko
1982: 24).
Cycle of dual and plural
On (pro)nouns
The Germanic dual –t is a remnant of the numeral
(Brugmann); its loss is `well-behaved’: dual is
lost first on verbs before pronouns, but Slavic is
not: verbal agreement is lost first. In OE, lost first
in the N with objective and renewed there first,
as in (1), but what does that mean for features?
On verbs: not much evidence for a cycle. Problem
in Early Slavic: agreement disappears later than
dual pronouns.
Early renewal in English
(1)
and git
æton þa beorhtan blæda ...
and 2DU ate the bright
fruit
Wæs se atola beforan, se
inc bam
was that terrible before
that 2DU both
forgeaf
balewe
geþohtas.
gave
wicked
thoughts
`and you (two) ate the bright fruit ... was the terrible
one next to you, who gave you both these terrible
thoughts.’ (Junius, Christ and Satan ll. 481; 485-8)
but never systematic!
Noun > gender
> diminuative
-heit in German/-hood in English
problem of derivational > inflectional
(1) An god..on þreom hadan.
one god ... in three persons (c1175 Lamb.
Hom. 99)
(2) Hæleþa leofost on gesiðes had.
... state Beowulf 1297
Croft
Aikhenvald
Types of minimalist features
The semantic features of lexical items
(which have to be cognitively based)
The interpretable ones relevant at the
Conceptual-Intentional interface.
Uninterpretable features act as `glue’ so to
speak to help out merge. For instance,
person and number features (=phifeatures) are interpretable on nouns but
not on verbs.
The importance of features
Chomsky (1965: 87-88): lexicon contains
information for the phonological,
semantic, and syntactic component.
Sincerity +N, -Count, +Abstract...)
Chomsky (1995: 230ff; 236; 277ff):
semantic (e.g. abstract object),
phonological (e.g. the sounds),
and formal features:
intrinsic or optional.
Formal features are: interpretable
and uninterpretable (1995: 277):
airplane
Interpr. [nominal]
[3 person]
[non-human]
Uninterpr [Case]
build
[verbal]
[assign
accusative]
[phi]
Simplifying checking
before
checking
after
checking
He
reads
books
[i-3S]
[u-phi]
[i-3P]
[i-3S]
[u-phi]
[i-3P]
That’s why `me sees him’ is ok!
Semantic and formal overlap:
Chomsky (1995: 230; 381) suggests: "formal
features have semantic correlates and
reflect semantic properties (accusative
Case and transitivity, for example)."
I interpret this: If a language has nouns with
semantic phi-features, the learner will be
able to hypothesize uninterpretable
features on another F (and will be able to
bundle them there).
Feature Economy
(a) Utilize semantic features: use them as
for functional categories, i.e. as formal
features.
(b) If a specific feature appears more than
once, one of these is interpretable and the
others are uninterpretable
Innate vs acquired
shapes
negatives
real-unreal
+/-individuated
duration
grammatical number
negation
`if’
irrealis
mass-count
progressive
Loss of semantic features
Full verbs such as Old English will with
[volition, expectation, future] features are
reanalyzed as having only the feature
[future] in Middle English.
And the negative
OE no/ne > ME (ne) not > -n’t
> ModE –n’t ... nothing, never, etc
The various cycles in terms of features
The cycle of agreement
noun > emphatic > pronoun > agreement > 0
[sem]
[i-phi]
[i-phi]/[u-phi]
[u-phi]
The cycles of negation
Adjunct/Argument Specifier
semantic >
[i-NEG]>
Head (of NegP)
[u-NEG]
>
affix
--
Demonstrative
[i-phi]
[i-loc]
article
[u-phi]
pronoun C
[i-phi]
[u-phi]
[u-T]
copula
[i-loc]
Explanations of the Cycle
Recent shift towards third factors and parametric
features: we need to be careful how many
mechanisms we allow.
Therefore, Feature Economy makes sense
All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F
Why?
– Maximize syntax?
– Keep merge going?
– Lighter?
Acquisition, Sign Language, ...
Unidirectional change in sign language
e.g. Aronoff et al; Fisher & Gough; Pfau &
Steinbach: V>ASP, N > AGR,
and L1 Acquisition
e.g. Brown (1973); Josefsson & Håkansson
(2000)
Interlanguage: debate as to features
Lardiere (2007), Hawkins (2005), Tsimpli et al
(2004)
Pre-human features: place, duration, negation ...
Conclusions
Generative Grammar and Historical Linguistics
provide insights to each other
Introspection and corpora/texts
Gradual, unidirectional change
provides a window on the language faculty
Role of UG determines what changes:
PS rules > parameters > features
We looked at four cycles and some challenges
New directions with cycles
25-26 April 2014:
Linguistic Cycle Workshop II at ASU;
deadline for abstracts is 31 October 2013;
http://linguistlist.org/callconf/browse-confaction.cfm?ConfID=163258