1 / 85

Generative Grammar and Historical Linguistics: what cycles tell us

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

maille
Download Presentation

Generative Grammar and Historical Linguistics: what cycles tell us

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Generative Grammar and Historical Linguistics: what cycles tell us Elly van Gelderen Oslo, 9 August 2013 International Conference on Historical Linguistics XXI

  2. 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.

  3. Model of language acquisition/change(based on Andersen 1973) Generation n Generation n+1 UG UG + + experience experience n = = I-language n I-language n+1 E-language n E-language n+1 + innovations

  4. Internal Grammar

  5. 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)

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. (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.

  9. 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.

  10. Current Minimalist issues that bear on unidirectional + gradual change The role of UG: Language-specific or third factor or pre-linguistic? Economy predicts one direction! The role of features: semantic ones innate? The emphasis on features is favorable to gradual change!

  11. 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”.

  12. 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

  13. 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-Chomsky-Conjecture (2008: 156): "All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon."

  14. 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).

  15. 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"

  16. 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

  17. 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 (=phi-features) are interpretable on nouns but not on verbs.

  18. Formal features are: interpretable and uninterpretable (1995: 277): airplanebuild Interpr. [nominal] [verbal] [3 person] [assign [non-human] accusative] Uninterpr [Case] [phi]

  19. Merge and AGREE (1) TP T’ T VP [u-phi] [i-pr] DP V’ many buffaloes V PP [i-3] [i-P] live in this room

  20. 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 + > -

  21. 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).

  22. 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].

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Cycles in all 3 layers of the clause CP C’ C TP T’ Neg T vP TMA v’ v ...

  26. 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.

  27. 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)

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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).

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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

  34. 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)

  35. 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)

  36. Fail to ... (in COHA)

  37. Neg Cycle in terms of structure NegP Neg’ Neg VP ne V DP/AP no thing Please see (2) on Handout and then (1) for more detail.

  38. and in terms of features DP in the VP > Specifier of NegP semantic > [i-neg] > Head Neg > negative affix > [u-neg] and then renewal is needed from another lexical element

  39. The Subject Cycle • 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).

  40. Just a few examples The Basque verbal prefixes n-, g-, z- are identical to the pronouns ni ‘I’, gu ‘we’, and zu ‘you.’ (Gavel & Henri-Lacombe 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.

  41. Tunica prefixes: Ɂi- [1S], wi-[2SM], hi-/ he-[2SF], Ɂu- [3SM], ti- [3SF] pronouns: Ɂima, ma', hɛ'ma, Ɂu'wi, 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.’

  42. 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

  43. Arabic pronouns and PF agreement(table adapted from Albuhayri 2013)

  44. 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.

  45. (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.”

  46. 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

  47. English: start?? (a) Modification, (b) coordination, (c) position, (d) doubling, (e) loss of V-movement, (f) Code switching Coordination (and Case) (1) Me andKitty 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.

  48. Doubling and cliticization (1) Me, I've tucking had it with the small place. (BNC H0M 1608) (2) Me, I think I'd like a change. (COHA 2001. fiction) (3) %Him/Her, s/he shouldn’t do that (not attested in COCA or BNC; once in COHA) (4) What I'm gonna do? `What am I going to do' CSE-FAC: uncliticized cliticized total I 2037 685 (=25%) 2722 you 1176 162 (=12.1%) 1338 he 128 19 (=12.9%) 147

  49. Problem in English: why so slow!

More Related