Download Harvard Linguistic Circle - Arizona State University

Generative Historical Syntax and
the Linguistic Cycle
Elly van Gelderen
[email protected]
29 March 2013
Harvard Linguistic Circle
Outline
A. What is Generative Historical Linguistics?
B. The healthy tension between generative
grammar and historical linguistics, in both
directions and how the current Minimalist
Program is conducive to looking at gradual,
unidirectional change.
C. Examples of Linguistic Cycles and how
they can be explained and some challenges.
Model of language acquisition
(based on Andersen 1973)
Generation n
Generation n+1
UG
UG
+
+
experience
experience n
=
=
I-language n
I-language n+1
E-language n
+ innovations
E-language n+1
Internal Grammar
Reanalysis is crucial:
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.
Use (of texts and) corpora
Finding a pattern in a (spoken) corpus shows that
there is something systematic going on:
repeatedly finding shouldof and shoulda indicates
that something interesting is happening with
modals and perfect auxiliaries:
(1) I should of knew this was too good to be true.
(2) There xuld not a be do so mykele.
`There shouldn’t have been done so much.’
(Margaret Paston a1469)
That-trace
(1) Ac hwaet saegst ðu ðonne ðaet hwaet sie
forcuðre ðonne sio ungesceadwisnes?
But what say you then that -be
wickeder than be foolishness
`But what do you say is wickeder than
foolishness?' (Boethius 36.8, from Allen 1977:
122)
Parsed 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.
Other historical (parsed) corpora have
appeared or are appearing and spurring
much work among generative and nongenerative linguists:
the Tycho Brahe parsed corpus of historical
Portuguese, o corpus do Português,
the Corpus del Español,
the Regensburg Russian Diachronic Corpus,
a Hungarian corpus is under construction,
and COHA with a very helpful interface!
Some other issues of discussion
Change is unidirectional or not
and gradual or not
Current theory-internal questions
The role of UG:
Language-specific or third factor
The role of features
The role of grammaticalization
and unidirectionality.
Is grammaticalization epiphenomenal or real?
Newmeyer (1998: 237); Roberts & Roussou (2003:
2) and others: “grammaticalization is a regular
case of parameter change … [and]
epiphenomenal” 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!
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”.
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.
The set of features that are available to the
learner is determined by UG.
Features and word order
Biberauer & Roberts (2008) in examining the
shift from OV to VO crucially rely on a
EPP-feature. If T bears an EPP feature, a
D head will adjoin to T or a DP will move
to the specifier of the TP in Modern
English. Languages can also have a VP or
vP satisfy the EPP feature rather than just
the DP contained in the VP or vP.
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].
A second shift
Faculty of Language is determined by:
“(1) genetic endowment, which sets limits on the
attainable languages, thereby making language
acquisition possible;
(2) external data, converted to the experience that
selects one or another language within a narrow
range;
(3) principles not specific to FL [the Faculty of
Language]. Some of the third factor principles
have the flavor of the constraints that enter into
all facets of growth and evolution.... Among
these are principles of efficient computation”.
(Chomsky 2007: 3)
Third factors
We need more on third factors: not well defined
and invoked to account for a number of
phenomena, e.g. pro-drop (Sigurðsson 2011),
phrase structure (Medeiros 2012), and language
change (van Gelderen 2011).
Constraints on word learning, such as the shape
over color bias (Landau et al 1992), would also
be third factor. Like UG before it, third factor
reasons would remain stable and not
responsible in language change.
Cycles tell us which features matter
Subject and Object Agreement
demonstrative/emphatic > pronoun > agreement > zero
Copula Cycle
a demonstrative > copula > zero
b verb > aspect > copula
Case or Definiteness or DP
demonstrative
> definite article > ‘Case’ > zero
Negative
a negative argument > negative adverb > negative particle
> zero
b verb > aspect
> negative > C
Future and Aspect Auxiliary
A/P > M > T > C
Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer’s 3 types
1. “isolated instances of grammaticalization”,
as when a lexical item grammaticalizes
and is then replaced by a new lexeme. For
instance, the lexical verb go (or want)
being used as a future marker.
2. “subparts of language, for example, when
the tense-aspect-mood system of a given
language develops from a periphrastic into
an inflexional pattern and back to a new
periphrastic one” or when negatives
change.
and
3. “entire languages and language types”
but there is “more justification to apply the
notion of a linguistic cycle to individual
linguistic developments”, e.g. the
development of future markers, of
negatives, and of tense, rather than to
changes in typological character, as in
from analytic to synthetic and back to
analytic.
Caution about the third kind
Heine et al’s reasons for caution about the
third type of change, i.e. a cyclical change
in language typology, is that we don’t
know enough about older stages of
languages.
Most linguists are comfortable with cycles of
the first and second kind but they are not
with cycles of the third kind, e.g.
Jespersen (1922; chapter 21.9).
Macroparameters and microparameters
Baker (2001) and, more recently, Biberauer
& Roberts (2012) have formulated macro
and micro parameters.
Macroparameters for Baker define the
character of a particular language, e.g.
polysynthetic or not, whereas
microparameters for B&R may involve the
features of a particular lexical item.
Macrocycles and microcycles
In the same vein, it is possible to distinguish two
kinds of cycles, a macrocycle and a microcycle.
A microcyle involves just one aspect of the
language, for instance, negatives or
demonstratives being reinforced by adverbs, as
in English those people there. They include
Heine et al’s first and second kind.
Macrocycles, more controversially, concern the
entire linguistic system, i.e. Heine et al’s third
kind.
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, according to Kiparsky (2011).
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) find no evidence for
phonetic weakening in Jespersen’s Cycle in Greek
and 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. When emphatic
negatives are overused, their semantic impact
weakens and they become the regular negative
and a new emphatic will appear.
Main question
How does the child respond to these fast
changes?
Feature-spread through the clausal skeleton
is reanalyzed.
Microcycle
(1)a. I’m gonna leave for the summer.
b. *I’m gonna to Flagstaff for the summer.
Nesselhauf (2012) identifies three features,
intention, prediction, and arrangement, in the
change of shall, will, ‘ll, be going to, be to, and
the progressive) in the last 250 years: as the
sense of intention is lost and replaced by the
sense of prediction, new markers of intention will
appear:
want has intention in (4a) and it is starting to gain
the sense of prediction, as in (4b).
(2)a. The final injury I want to talk about is brain
damage ... (Nesselhauf 2012: 114).
b. We have an overcast day today that looks
like it wants to rain. (Nesselhauf 2012: 115).
Going to
Nesselhauf’s data on BE going to show that
its use as a future marker has increased,
both in the intention and prediction sense,
and that the proportion of pure prediction
is increasing.
Once the sense of prediction prevails,
another verb may be taking over to
compensate for the feature of intention.
Macrocycles
Hodge (1971):
Proto-Afroasiatic
analytic
*Sm
Old Egyptian
synthetic
sM
Late Egyptian
analytic
Sm
Coptic
synthetic
sM
Huang (to appear):
Chinese, from moderately synthetic to
analytic to moderately synthetic.
August Wilhem von Schlegel 1818: for the
use of analytic and synthetic.
Attachment Type Cycle
Isolating
Inflectional
Morphemes per word?
Agglutinative
Four (micro)cycles I will 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
Demonstrative > article/copula/tense marker
Two Negative Cycles
I Indefinite phrase > negative = Jespersen’s Cycle
Negation weakens and is renewed. For instance:
(1) I can’t do that
>
(2) I can’t see nothing
II Verb > negative
(3) is-i
ba-d-o
Koorete
she-NOM
disappear-PF-PST
`She disappeared' (Binyam 2007: 7).
(4) ‘is-i
dana ‘ush-u-wa-nni-ko
she-NOM
beer
drink-PRES-not_exist-3FS-FOC
‘She does (will) not drink beer.’ (Binyam 2007: 9).
Negative Cycle in Old English
450-1150 CE
a.
no/ne
early Old English
b.
ne
after 900, esp S
c.
(ne) not
d.
not >
(na wiht/not)
after 1350
-not/-n’t
after 1400
Old English:
(1) Men ne cunnon secgan to soðe ... hwa
Man not could tell to truth ... who
`No man can tell for certain ... who'.
(2) Næron 3e noht æmetti3e, ðeah ge wel ne
dyden
not-were you not unoccupied. though you
well not did
`You were not unoccupied, though you did
not do well'.
Weakening and renewal
(1) we cannot tell of (Wycliff Sermons from the
1380s)
(2) But I shan't put you to the trouble of farther
Excuses, if you please this Business shall rest
here. (Vanbrugh, The Relapse1680s).
(3) that the sonne dwellith therfore nevere the
more ne lasse in oon signe than in another
(Chaucer, Astrolabe 665 C1).
(4) No, I never see him these days (BNC - A9H
350)
Negative source is a verb
(1)
wo
mei you shu
Chinese
I
not
exist book
`I don't have a book.’
(2)
Yao Shun ji
mo
...
Old Chinese
Yao Shun
since died
`Since Yao and Shun died, ...'
(Mengzi, Tengwengong B, from Lin 2002: 5)
(3)yu de
wang ren
mei kunan, ... Early Mandarin
wish PRT died person not-be suffering
`If you wish that the deceased one has no suffering, ...'
(Dunhuang Bianwen, from Lin 2002: 5-6)
One Negative Cycle,
e.g. English, French, Arabic
XP
Spec
na wiht
X'
X
not > n’t
YP
…
And a second
According to Lin, mei went through a perfective stage, so:
(4) dayi ye mei you chuan, jiu
zou le chulai
coat even not
PF
wear, then walk PF out
`He didn't even put on his coat and walked out.' (Rulin
Waishi, from Lin 2002: 8)
(5)
NegP
Neg
mei
ASPP
ASP
mei
VP
V
mei
...
The Subject Cycle
A. demonstrative > third person pron > clitic
> agreement
B. oblique > emphatic > first/second pron >
clitic > agreement
noun >
(1) Shi diné bizaad
yíní-sh-ta'
I
Navajo language
3-1-study
‘As for me, I am studying Navajo.’
Brazilian Portuguese
(1)
Vossa mercê > Vosmecê > (V)ocê
your favor/mercy
you
>
cê
you-indefinite
(see Mattoso Câmara 1979; Gonçalves 1987; Dutra 1991, cited in Vitral &
Ramos 2006)
(2)
cê only in subject position and pre-V
(3)
ele(s) >
ela(s) >
(4)
es inventa um bocado de coisa / eles inventam …
`they invented (S) …’
el, es
éa, éas
Some stages
Japanese and 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)a. mẽy nee us ko dekha
1S ERG him DAT saw
b. aadmii nee kitaab
ko peRha
man ERG book DAT read
(3) ham log `we people‘
(4) mẽy or merii behn doonõ dilii mẽy rehtee hẽ
I and my sister both Delhi in living are
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.
(5)
Me, I was flying economy, but the plane, … was
guzzling gas
Doubling and cliticization
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Me, I've tucking had it with the small place.
(BNC H0M 1608)
%Him, he ....
%Her, she shouldn’t do that (not
attested in the BNC)
*As for a dog, it should be happy.
CSE-FAC:
uncliticized
I
2037
you 1176
he
128
cliticized
685 (=25%)
162 (=12.1%)
19
(=12.9%)
total
2722
1338
147
Loss of V-movement and Code
switching
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
What I'm gonna do?
`What am I going to do'
How she's doing?
`How is she doing‘
*He ging weg `he went away’ Dutch-English CS
The neighbor ging weg
French
(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)
(1)a. *Je heureusement ai vu ça
I
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)
(2) Où vas-tu
Standard French
where go-2S
(3) tu
vas où
Colloquial French
2S go where ‘Where are you going?'
Subject Cycle
Full phrase move to Spec TP >
Head moves to T
Reanalysis as to what the head is: pronoun
or agreement.
(Economy: agreement =uninterpretable and
then this needs an interpretable feature as
well)
Copula cycle, sources
• Verbs
• Demonstratives
• Prepositions etc
Reanalysis of location, identity, and aspect
features
Copulas in English
The flavors e.g. English be, become, go, fall,
turn, seem, appear, stay, and remain.
semantic features
be
remain seem, appear stay
[location] [duration] [visible]
[duration]
[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)
Demonstrative to article cycle
(1) demonstrative/adverb > definite
article > Case/non-generic > class
marker > 0
(2) gife to … þa munecas of þe mynstre
give to … the monks of the abbey
(Peterborough Chron. 656)
(3) * the
Reduction of the article and
renewal
(3) Morret's brother came out of Scoteland
for th'acceptacion of the peax
(The Diary of Edward VI, 1550s)
(4) Oh they used to be ever so funny houses
you know and in them days … They used
to have big windows, but they used to a all
be them there little tiny ones like that.
(BNC - FYD 72)
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)
Demonstratives, pronouns, and pro-drop in
Old English
(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)
Traugott (1992: 171)
(2) Þa clypode an ðæra manna Zebeus gehaten and cwæð to ðam cyninge;
`Then cried one of-the men Zebeus called and said to the king:
Eala ðu cyning þas fulan wuhta þu scoldest awurpan of ðinum rice.
Oh you king the foul creatures you should throw-out of your kingdom
ðylæs ðe hi mid heora fylðe us ealle besmiton;
in-case that they [= the foul creatures] with their filth us all affect
Hi habbað mid him awyriedne engel. mancynnes feond.
They [= the foul creatures] have with them corrupt angel, mankind’s enemy
and se hæfð andweald on ðam mannum ðe heora scyppend forseoð.
and he [the angel] has power over those men that their creator despise
and to deofolgyldum bugað;
and to idols bow.’
(DOE Segment 8 Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, second series M. Godden 1979, p. 283.
110 – 115)
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
that -->
that
him/her --> himself/herself
External
seo --> she
hi --> they
a. se/that
>
the
[i-loc]/[i-phi]
[u-T]/[u-ps] (= -Ps)
b. he/hi
is replaced by
he
heo/ha is replaced by
she (possibly via seo)
hi/hie
is replaced by
they
[i-phi]
[i-phi]/[i-loc]
Demonstrative
[i-phi]/ [i-loc]
article
[u-phi]
Dem
C
copula
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-phi]
[i-loc]
[i-loc]
Also: degree adverb and tense marker (TibetoBurman)
Feature Economy:
Utilize semantic features: use them as for
functional categories, i.e. as formal features.
Types of minimalist features
The semantic features of lexical items (which have
to be cognitively based not UG)
The interpretable ones relevant at the ConceptualIntentional interface.
Uninterpretable features act as `glue’ so to speak
to help out merge. For instance, person and
number features (=phi-features) 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!
Major Issues
Where do features ‘come from’?
Cartography vs Bare Phrase Structure
(1) Tpast
Tfut Moodir
Modnec
Modpos ASPhab ASPrep ASPfreq
once then perhaps necessarily possibly
usually again
often
(from Cinque 1999: 107)
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
a Adjunct/Argument Specifier
Head (of NegP)
affix
semantic >
[i-NEG]>
[u-NEG]
>
-b. Lexical Head > (higher) Head >
(higher) Head > 0
[neg]
[i-NEG]/[F]
[F]
Verb and demonstrative to copula
Assume copulas have:
be
remain
seem
[i-loc]
[i-loc]
[i-loc]
[i-ASP]
[i-M]
Source for [loc]? Verbs and demonstratives
D
[i-loc]
[i-phi]
[u-T]
> copula
> [i-loc]
> [u-phi]
> zero
> --
Demonstrative > article
a.
DP
>
that
D'
[i-ps] D
NP
[i-loc][u-#] N
[i-phi]
Hence
(1)
(2)
b.
DP
D'
…
D
the
[u-phi]
*I saw the
I saw that/those.
NP
N
[i-phi]
Demonstrative
[i-phi]
[i-loc]
article
[u-phi]
pronoun C
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[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?
Summary
Review of GG and HL
Introspection vs corpora/texts
Gradual, unidirectional change
Role of UG determines what changes:
PS rules > parameters > features
Challenges
Some References
• Allen, Cynthia 1977. Topics in Diachronic
English Syntax. UMASS Diss.
• Andersen, henning 1973. in Language.
• L’Arrivée, Pierre 2010. The pragmatic motics of
the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the
history of negation in French. Lingua 120 (9):
2240-2258.
• Baker, Mark 2001. The Atoms of Language.
New York: Basic Books.
• Baker, Mark 2008. The syntax of Agreement and
Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts 2012. The
Significance of What Hasn’t Happened. DIGS
14, Lisbon, 4 July.
• Bopp, Franz 1816. Über das
Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in
Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen,
lateinischen, persischen und germanischen
Sprachen. Frankfurt-am-Main.
• Breitbarth, Anne 2012. The Development of
Conditional Modal Verbs. DIGS 14, Lisbon, July.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA.:
MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland et al.
(eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Closs, Elizabeth 1965. Diachronic Syntax and Generative grammar.
Language 41.3: 402-415.
Closs Traugott, Elizabeth 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de 1746. Essai sur lórigine des connaissances
humaines. Paris.
Crowley, Terry. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Auckland:
Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Osten 2001. Inflationary Effects in Language and Elsewhere. In Joan
Bybee and Paul Hopper, eds. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic
Structure, 471-480. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Franzén, Torsten 1939. Etude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels
sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri.
Gabelentz, Georg von der 1891[1901]. Die Sprachwissenshaft. Ihre
Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig : Weigel. [reprint
Tübingen: Narr 1972].
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gardiner, Alan H. 1904. The word ... Zeitschrift für Ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 41: 130-135.
Gelderen, Elly van 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gelderen, Elly van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gelderen, Elly van 2008. Where did Late Merge go?
Grammaticalization as Feature Economy. Studia Linguistica: 287300.
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Givón, Talmy 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology.
Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394-415.
Givón, Talmy 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In
Charles Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 151-188. New York: Academic
Press.
Greenberg, Joseph 1978. How does a language acquire gender
markers? In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human
Language 3, 47-82. Stanford University Press.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Harris, Martin 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax. London: Longman.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991.
Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, Kees 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hodge, Carleton 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Linguistic Sciences: 13: 1-7.
Hoeksema, Jack 2009. Jespersen Recycled. In Elly van Gelderen Cyclical
Change, 15-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Mike & Elizabeth Traugott 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Huang, James to appear. On Syntactic Analyticity and Parametric Theory.
In Handbook of Chinese Languages. Wiley-Blackwell.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen
Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des
Menschengeschlechts.
Ingham, Richard & Pierre L’Arrivée (eds.). to appear. The Evolution of
Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jack, George 1978. Negative adverbs in early Middle English. English Studies 59: 295-309.
Jespersen, Otto 1917 [1966]. Negation in English and other Languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.
[second edition]
Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.
Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive Link between Pronoun and
Copula. Rice Dissertation.
Kiparsky, Paul 1965. Phonological Change. MIT PhD.
Kiparsky, Paul 1996. Indo-European Origins of Germanic Syntax. In Ian Roberts and Adrian
Battye (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 140-167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul 2011. Grammaticalization as Optimization. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and
Andrew Garrett, Grammatical Change Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 15-51. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul & Cleo Condoravdi (2006). Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle. In Mark Janse, Brian
Joseph & A. Ralli (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek
Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 172-197. Mytilene: Doukas.
Kemenade, Ans van 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Kemenade, Ans van & Nigel Vincent (eds) 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. CUP.
King, Robert 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Prentice Hall.
Klima, Edward 1965. Studies in Diachronic Transformational Syntax. Harvard PhD.
Kroch, Anthony & Anne Taylor 1996. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation
and language contact. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of
Morphosyntactic Change, 297-325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, William 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Lakoff, Robin 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. MIT Press.
Lambrecht, Knud 1981. Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non Standard French.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Landau, Barbara 1994. Where’s what and what’s where: the language of objects in space. Lingua
92: 259-296.
Lightfoot, David 1974. The diachronic analysis of English modals. Historical Linguistics ed. by J.
M. Anderson & C. Jones, 219-49. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Lightfoot, David 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1977. A mechanism for the
development of copula morphemes. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of
syntactic change, 414-444. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Los, Bettelou 2012 The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to
unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli et al. (eds), Informationa
Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, 21-46. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McWhorter, John 1997. Towards a new model of creole genesis. New York:
Peter Lang.
Medeiros, David 2012. Economy of Command. University of Arizona PhD.
Meillet, Antoine. (1921 [1912]) "L'évolution des formes grammaticales". In:
Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (ed. Édouard Champion).
Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 130-148. [reprint 1958]
Nesselhauf, Nadja 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional
system: the recent semantic evolution of English future time
expressions. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2.1: 83-132.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the
Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Ian 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, Ian 2009. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy, and semantic
bleaching. In Graeme Trousdale & Elizabeth Traugott (eds), Gradience,
Gradualness, and Grammaticalization, 45-73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
Robins, R.H. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.
Schlegel, August Wilhem von 1818. Observations sur la langue et la literature
provençales. Paris.
Schwegler, Armin 1990. Analyticity and Syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2011. Conditions on Argument Drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42.2:
267-304.
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tauli, Valter 1958. The Structural Tendencies of Languages. Helsinki.
Tauli, Valter 1966. Structural Tendencies in Uralic Languages. Den Haag: Mouton.
Tooke, John Horne 1786-1805. The Diversion of Purley. London. .
Traugott, Elizabeth & Bernd Heine 1991. Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Trudgill, Peter & Jenny Cheshire 1998. The sociolinguistics reader volume 1. London:
Arnold.
van der Auwera, Johan 2009. The Jespersen Cycles. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.)
Cyclical Change, 35-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vance, Barbara 1997. Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vitral, Lorenso & Jânia Ramos 2006. Gramaticalização: uma abordagem formal. Rio
de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs. Travaux de Linguistique et
Litterature: 131-147.