Download ppt

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:
(A) Introspection vs text/corpora
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.
(B) The unidirectional and gradual question
(B) Is change gradual or abrupt?
Most functionalist explanations assume
change is gradual.
Early generative approaches emphasize a
catastrophic reanalysis of both the
underlying representation and the rules
applying to them.
Change = catastrophic
Lightfoot (1979), 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’).
Newmeyer (1998: 237); Roberts & Roussou (2003:
2) and others argue that “grammaticalization is a
regular case of parameter change … [and]
epiphenomenal”, i.e. all components also occur
independently.
Current Minimalist issues that bear
on unidirectional + gradual change
The role of UG
is minimized: third factor, economy, or prelinguistic. Economy predicts one direction!
The role of features:
The emphasis on features is favorable to
gradual change!
Change in 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
Minimalism of the1990s-2013
Parameters now consist of choices of
feature specifications as the child acquires
a lexicon (Chomsky 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 2008,
2009, 2010).
Word order change in terms if features e.g.
Breitbarth 2012, Biberauer & Roberts
(2008).
Three factors, e.g. Chomsky 2007
(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 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"
Economy
Locality = Minimize computational burden
(Ross 1967; Chomsky 1973)
Use a head = Minimize Structure (Head
Preference Principle, van Gelderen 2004)
Late Merge = Minimize computational
burden (van Gelderen 2004, and others)
The latter two can be seen in terms of
Feature Economy
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.
Formal features are interpretable
and uninterpretable
(Chomsky 1995: 277):
airplane
Interpr. [nominal]
[3 person]
[non-human]
Uninterpr [Case]
build
[verbal]
[assign
accusative]
[phi]
Merge and AGREE
(1)
TP
T’
T
[u-phi]
[i-pr] DP
VP
many buffaloes V
[i-3] [i-P]
live
V’
PP
in this room
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).
Radford (2000): in acquisition from + > -
If semantic features are innate, we
need:
Feature Economy
(a) Utilize semantic features: use them as
for functional categories, i.e. as formal
features (van Gelderen 2008; 2011).
(b) If a specific feature appears more than
once, one of these is interpretable and the
others are uninterpretable (Muysken
2008).
Features and grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is 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
And about processing/economy
Negative Cycle (Gardiner/Jespersen
see van der Auwera)
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
...
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
> [u-neg]
>
>
Specifier of NegP
[i-neg]
>
negative affix
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.’
Because of the cycle: pronominal
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
Arabic pronouns and PF agreement
(table adapted from Albuhayri 2013)
Ɂanaa ‫أنا‬1S
-tuُ‫ـت‬1Snaħnuُ‫ن َْحن‬1P
-naa‫ـنا‬1P
Ɂantaُ‫ت‬
-taُ‫ـت‬2SM
َ ‫أ َ ْن‬2SM
َ
Ɂantiُ‫أ َ ْنت‬2SF
-tiُ‫ـت‬2SM
Ɂantumaa‫أ َ ْنتما‬2PM
-tum‫ـتم‬2PM
Ɂantunnaُ‫أ َ ْنتُّن‬2PF
-tunnaُ‫ـتن‬2PF
Huwaُ‫هو‬3SM
-(a) 3SM
َ
Hiyaُ‫هي‬3SF
-at 3SF
َ
Hum‫هم‬3PM
-wa/-uu/‫ـو‬3PM
Hunnaُ‫هن‬3PF
-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
English: start??
(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
a
b
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]
Old Egyptian (1) > Middle (2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
a.
rmt p-n
man MS-PROX `this man.’
b.
ntr-w
jp-w
god-P
MP-DIST `those gods.’
̩tmj-t
pw jmn-t
city-F
be west-F
`The West is a city.’
(Loprieno 1995; 2001)
p
-w
>
pw
[i-3MS]
[distal]
[loc]
[u-phi]
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
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), and Zoque (Faarlund)
(1) bɨɨ̀
ŋó-kə ̀
azèn
əə
3S
1S-GEN friend
ART →
3S
1S-GEN friend
COP
‘He is my friend.’ (Post 2007 : 429)
In Galo, əə functions as topic marker as well as
unmarked copula and derives from a (proximal)
demonstrative.
(2) Te’ tuwi kanaŋbüde
te’
tuwi 0-kanaŋ=pü=te
DET dog 3B-old=REL=PRED
‘The dog is old’ (Faarlund 2012: 141-2)
Greenberg’s Demonstrative Cycle
and additions
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 Peterb Chron
(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.
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!
Innate
semantic
shapes
negatives
real-unreal
+/-individuated
duration
vs
acquired
interpretable
grammatical number
negation
`if’
irrealis
mass-count
progressive
The various cycles in terms of features
The cycle of agreement
noun > emphatic > pronoun > agreement >
[sem]
[i-phi] [i-phi]/[u-phi] [u-phi]
0
The cycles of negation
Adjunct/Argument Specifier Head (of NegP) affix
semantic >
[i-NEG]> [u-NEG]
>
-Modal Cycle
Verb
>
[volition, expectation, future]
AUX
[future]
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 in terms of Economy
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