Transcript Formal Syntax and Language Change

Formal Syntax and
Language Change
Elly van Gelderen
5 January 2013
LSA, Boston
Outline of the Chapter
A. A review of the tension between generative
grammar and historical linguistics, in both
directions.
B. The role of Universal Grammar in Change
C. The major advances from the 1950s to the
present in generative grammar and how they have
an impact on diachronic studies, e.g. from
catastrophic reanalyses to gradual change.
D. Some issues, e.g. Minimalism vs cartography and
inventory of features.
First an example
A formal approach: how and why
The introduction of reflexives (a puzzle from a
purely functional point of view):
(1) Wit
unc wið hronfixas werian þohton
we
us against whales defend thought
`We intended to defend ourselves against the
whales.' (Beowulf 540)
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)
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)
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]
pronoun
C
copula
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-phi]
[u-T]
[i-loc]
Feature Economy:
Utilize semantic features: use them as for
functional categories, i.e. as formal features.
As for A, the tensions ...
Chomsky has never been interested in
language change. The exception is a
chapter in Chomsky & Halle’s (1968) The
Sound Pattern of English, which is a
description of four stages of English
vowels (most likely due to Halle’s
interests, as evidenced in Halle 1962).
Since Chomsky has set the agenda for
generative linguists for almost 60 years,
pursuing historical linguistics has therefore
been `less popular’.
Introspection
Generative syntax has typically relied on
introspective data, i.e. asking a native speaker
for grammaticality judgments because of its
emphasis on the internalized grammar.
For historical periods, such a method of data
gathering is obviously impossible and, as a
result, historical generative linguistics has often
suffered.
Generative grammar places much emphasis on
the distinction between competence and
performance, or more recently I(nternal)- and
E(xternal)-language (see Chomsky 1986).
Use (of texts and) corpora
The use of corpora has also been controversial in
much generative syntax up to recently.
However, 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)
Practical consequences
Mainstream historical linguists often see generative work
as data-poor, over-theoretical, and not very insightful.
Lack of impact: ICHL (International Conference on
Historical Linguistics) and ICEHL (International
Conference on English Historical Linguistics) will have
generative papers and occasional plenary addresses
using that framework, but generative grammar is a minor
framework.
Thus, ICHL 20 in Osaka, Japan in 2011 was organized
around workshops but did not have a specific workshop
on generative grammar and no plenary speaker, and
ICEHL 17 in Zurich, Switzerland in 2012 had no
generative plenary speakers and included only a handful
of generative papers.
And ...
Generative conferences and journals do not see historical
linguistics as a crucial component to their enterprise of
understanding the faculty of language.
Thus, two recent, very influential generative conferences
had only two papers devoted to historical linguistics:
NELS (North East Linguistic Society) 42, held in Toronto
in 2011, included two papers with a diachronic focus in
the 67 papers that appeared on the final program and
GLOW (Generative Linguists of the Old World) 35, held
in Potsdam in 2012, included no historical ones in the 32
papers of the general session.
Although the next GLOW will have Variation and Change
as one workshop and another on diachronic phonology
(http://conference.sol.lu.se/en/glow-36/ )
There has always been a group:
Closs (later Closs Traugott), King, Kiparsky, Klima,
Lakoff, and Lightfoot.
Starting in 1990 in York, generative historical
linguists have come together through the DIGS
(Diachronic Generative Syntax) conference
which is devoted entirely to diachronic
generative syntax. These linguists have used
written sources and have, for the last 20 years,
been using various corpora.
Many of the DIGS conferences had selected
papers appear, e.g. as Battye & Roberts (1995),
van Kemenade & Vincent (1997), Pintzuk,
Tsoulas, & Warner (2000), and Crisma &
Longobardi (2009).
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/).
This has resulted in 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 tension
• Unidirectional or not
• Gradual or not
• Role of UG: Language-specific or third
factor
• Currently:
- The role of features
- Minimalism vs Cartography
The role of grammaticalization
and unidirectionality.
Is grammaticalization real or epiphenomenal?
Roberts & Roussou (2003: 2), very much in the
spirit of Newmeyer (1998: 237), state that
“grammaticalization is a regular case of
parameter change … [and] epiphenomenal” in
that 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 internally,
namely through the child reanalyzing the input in
a certain way.
Is change gradual or abrupt?
Most functionalist explanations assume it is
gradual whereas many formal account 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’).
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).
B. 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 that is the result is very
language-specific, as we’ll see.
Even as early as 1965, Chomsky says that
“semantic features ..., are presumably drawn
from a universal ‘alphabet’” (1965: 142, although
Chomsky continues that “little is known about
this today”).
Model of language acquisition
(based on Andersen 1973)
Generation n
Generation n+1
I-language
I-language
E-language
+ innovations
E-language
1970s and 1980s
In the 1970s, UG comes to be seen as consisting
of Principles (true in all languages) and
Parameters (choices to be made depending on
the language).
Subjacency Principle (Chomsky 1973): don’t move
too far or too complicated
Headedness Parameter: initial or last depending
on the language a child encounters: head-initial
in Arabic and head-final in Urdu.
Therefore emphasis on parameter resetting, i.e. a
younger generation will set its parameter in a
different way from the older generation.
1990s
Parameters now consist of choices of feature
specifications as the child acquires a lexicon
(Chomsky 2004; 2007). All parameters are
lexical and determine linearization; therefore,
they account for the variety of languages.
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." This has spurred some
work on the role of features in language change
(e.g. Breitbarth 2012, Roberts 2009, van
Gelderen 2008). The set of features that are
available to the learner is determined by UG.
Faculty of Language
“(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.
On to C, advances:1960/70s:
Rule loss, addition, and
restructuring/simplification
underlying
/rajt/ `write’
/rayt-ər/ `writer’
a.voicing
not applicable raydər
b.raising
rʌjt
can no longer
apply
phonetic
[rʌjt]
[rajder]
Kiparsky 1971: Opacity
1960-70s:
Closs Traugott, Lightfoot on the category of
modals
Late 1970s: Allen on wh-extraction:
(1) Ac hwaet
saegst
ðu ðonne
ðaet hwaet
sie forcuðre
But what say you then that -be
wickeder
ðonne
sio ungesceadwisnes?
than be foolishness
`But what do you say is wickeder than
foolishness?' (Boethius 36.8, from Allen 1977:
122)
Main advance: from very languagespecific to more cross-linguistic
a. Sentence --> NP + VP
b. VP --> Verb + NP (Chomsky 1957 : 27)
And form ordering of transformations:
If S1 is a grammatical sentence of the form
NP1 - Aux - V - NP2, then the corresponding
string of the form
NP2 - Aux + be + en - V - by + NP1
is also a grammatical sentence. (Chomsky 1957:
43)
Closs (later Traugott) on modals
(8) S →
VP →
MV →
Vi
→
AUX →
M →
BE →
NP
VP
MV + AUX
NP – Vt
Vi
Vi move
Vix
PP – habb, in env. Vt and Vi-move (Inf M) T
PP – wes, in env. Vi
PrP – BE
cunn, mag, mot, sceal, will
beo, wes, weorþ
Closs’ types of changes
reversal of the order, loss of restrictions, addition and loss
of formants, and “finally, ..., really radical changes of
system membership, e.g. when do, which was a
member of the lexical system, gave rise to an
operator in the syntactic system” (p. 412).
“[L]anguage changes by means of the addition of single
innovations to an adult’s grammar, by transmission of
these innovations to new generations, and by the
reinterpretation of grammars such that mutations occur”
(p. 415).
Lightfoot (1974: 234 ): “all [modals] behave exactly like
ordinary, complement-taking verbs” but they are not full
verbs in Modern English.
This is due to a “radical change in the deep structure” due
to the Transparency Principle.
Causes for reanalysis
Opacity
Kiparsky (1971)
A rule R of the form a→b / c __ d is opaque if there
are surface representations in the language
having either (i) a in the environment c __ d
(underapplication) or (ii) b derived by R in an
environment other than c __ d (overapplication)
Transparency Principle
“[D]erivations may be only of a limited degree of
complexity” (Lightfoot 1979: 344).
Post 1986: functional categories
Van Kemenade (1987)
OV > VO around 1200, echoing Canale, and
position of I.
V-second becomes more limited in scope and is different
from V-second in current V-second languages. Van
Kemenade recognizes that wh-elements and negatives
in initial, pre-V position trigger absolute V-second but
that, with topicalized elements, the subject pronoun can
follow resulting in V-third, as (10) shows.
(10) Ðas þing we
habbað be him gewritene
...
these things we
have about him written
`These things we have written about him.’ (Chronicle E,
1087, 143, van Kemenade 1987: 110)
1980-90s: parameters
Functional categories
V to T and T to C
clitics
V-2 and V-3
Impersonal > personal
Word order change
(Pintzuk, Kroch, Taylor, van Kemenade, Los,
van Gelderen, EyÞórrson, Roberts,
Kiparsky)
Pintzuk 1991
V-to-I movement, but once in a while there is one that looks as if it has
a topic with a verb moved to I, as in (12), from Pintzuk (1991).
(12)
þæt
his
aldres wæs ende gegongen
that his
life
was
end
come
`The end of his life had come' (Beowulf 822, from Pintzuk 1991:
187).
Pintzuk claims Old English has two strategies: movement of the V to C
as well as to I. She takes (12) as evidence for V to I movement with
the topic in the Spec of IP and (13) has V to C
(13)
Gregorius se trahtnere cwæð þæt forði wolde drihten
getrahtnian ...
Gregorius the translater said that therefore wanted God to-translate
`Gregorius, the translator, said that therefore God wanted to
translate ...' (van Kemenade 1997: 333).
Word order > Information Structure
This early work provides the seed to the current
shift by van Kemenade and others, e.g. Los
(2012), to connecting word order and
information structure. This construction also
leads Kroch & Taylor (1997) to investigate the
regional variation in the V-third of (10) and
Speyer (2008) revisits the issue and argues that
the choice between verb-second and verb-third
is determined by a requirement to avoid two
focused elements next to each other.
1980/90s: From functional
categories
I and C cross-linguistically. Steele (1981) looks at the
category of the auxiliary cross-linguistically and this has
diachronic implications.
Many of the languages examined are Indo-European.
Pintzuk (1991) looks at the position of I in Old English,
Roberts (1993) at Verb-movement, auxiliaries, and I in
French and English, Kiparsky at V-to-C movement in
early Indo-European and Germanic, EyÞórrson (1995) at
early Germanic Verb-movement, and Los (2000) looks at
the status of infinitives and the position of to.
Battye & Roberts’ (1995) Clause Structure: parametric
differences in verb-movement, both V-to-I and V-to-C, in
pro-drop, and in clitics.
Clausal skeleton: CP, TP, VP.
Towards features
In van Kemenade & Vincent (1997), we can see
the beginning of the shift towards Minimalism
with its emphasis on features. Most of the
papers continue to be more in the P&P
framework, as does Pintzuk, Tsoulas, and
Warner (2000). Typical topics are null
arguments, negatives and polarity, position of
subjects, the change to VO order, and verbmovement.
Roberts (1996): clitics are in the Spec of FinP and
the V is in Fin; in wh-questions, the V is in
Focus. = cartography
Argument Structure
There has always been an interest in the change from
impersonal to personal constructions. Lightfoot (1979)
uses early work by van der Gaaf (1904) to argue that,
due to the loss of morphological case, the argument
roles are opaque and a reanalysis takes place with the
experiencer role as subject.
Allen (1995) questions this relationship between the loss of
case and the change to personal constructions and
argues instead for a gradual spread of a particular lexical
frame. Since Hale & Keyser’s (2003) views where
argument structure, i.e. thematic structure, is
represented as a vP-shell, this model has been used to
account for changes in verb particle constructions
(Elenbaas 2007) and a loss of intransitives (van
Gelderen 2011).
Current Generative Model
Lexicon
N(arrow) S(yntax)
Interfaces PHON
SEM
External
systems:Sensorimotor Conceptual-Intentional
The role of features
airplane
interpretable: [nominal]
[3 person]
[non-human]
uninterpretable: [case]
build
[verbal]
[assign
accusative]
[phi]
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)
Features and word order
Biberauer & Roberts (2008) in examining the
shift from OV to VO crucially rely on a the
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
primarily concerned with word order, can be
found in van Gelderen (2004; 2010). Van
Gelderen 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].
Examples of Cycles
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
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
The Negative Cycle
XP
Spec
na wiht
X'
X
not > n’t
YP
…
or through Feature Economy:
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]
Conclusions
Review of GG and HL
Introspection vs corpora/texts
Gradual, unidirectional change
Role of UG determines what changes:
PS rules > parameters > features
Challenges