Transcript The Linguistic Cycle - Arizona State University

The Linguistic Cycle:
Background, common cycles,
and an account
Elly van Gelderen
14 November 2014
High desert Linguistics Conference
Outline
• Views on the cycle
• Micro and macrocyles
• The Subject and Copula Cycles
• Explanations for the loss and renewal
The Cycle: a definition
A linguistic cycle describes a regular pattern
of language change, a round of linguistic
changes taking place in a systematic
manner and direction. For instance,
negation may at some stage involve one
negative and then an optional second
negative may be added after which the first
one disappears. This new negative may be
reinforced by yet another negative and may
then itself disappear.
Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer’s 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).
Microcycle: the future cycle
(1)a. I’m gonna leave for the summer.
b. *I’m gonna to Flagstaff for the summer.
Nesselhauf (2012) provides a very precise account of the
changes in the various future markers (shall, will, ‘ll, be
going to, be to, and the progressive) in the last 250
years. She identifies three crucial features, intention,
prediction, and arrangement, and argues that as the
sense of intention is lost and is replaced by the sense of
prediction, new markers of intention will appear:
want has intention in (2a) and it is starting to gain the sense
of prediction, as in (2b).
(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).
Macrocycles
Hodge (1971):
Proto-Afroasiatic
Old Egyptian
Late Egyptian
Coptic
analytic
synthetic
analytic
synthetic
*Sm
sM
Sm
sM
Szmrecsanyi (2012; in progress) “when
restricting attention to the post- Old
English history of the language, it turns out
that there is no longer a linear drift but a
cyclical merry-go-round”.
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 the
wearing down to destroy the
language. The affixes grind
themselves down, disappear without
a trace; their functions or similar
ones, however, require new
expression.
ctd
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“
Cf. also Meillet (1912: 140): “une sorte de
développement en spirale”
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.
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
also replacing case with prepositions (p. 183).
Robins (1967: 150-159) provides a useful
overview:
de Condillac (1746) and Tooke (1786; 1805)
think that abstract, grammatical vocabulary
develops from earlier concrete vocabulary.
Bopp (1816) similarly argues that affixes
arise from earlier independent words.
Why look at this?
For generative grammar: if change is in the
same direction, the child is ‘reanalyzing’ it
one way and this gives insight into the
language faculty.
What are the features that are renewed?
How is the structure changed?
Not everyone agrees, e.g. Bybee (1985),
Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca (1994): “no gramtype is universal”
Examples of Cycles
Subject and Object Agreement (Givón)
demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zero
noun > first and second person > agreement > zero
noun > noun marker > agreement > zero
Copula Cycle (Katz)
demonstrative > copula > zero
third person > copula > zero
verb > aspect > copula
Noun Cycle (Greenberg)
demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zero
noun > number/gender > zero
Negative Cycle (Jespersen and Croft)
a negative argument > negative adverb > negative
particle > zero
b verb > aspect > negative > C
(negative polarity cycle: Willis)
CP Cycle
Adjunct AP/PP/wh > ... > C
Future and Aspect Auxiliary
A/P > M > T (> C)
V > ASP
Two kinds of Negative Cycles
Indefinite phrase > negative = Jespersen’s Cycle.
(1) né svá illr
at
einugi
dugi
nor so
bad that nothing
is-fit-for
`(Nobody is so good that he doesn't have faults)
nor so bad that he is not good for something'
(Hávamál, 133).
(2) Trøtt...jeg? Ha'kke tid
Norwegian
tired ... me? have-not time
`Me, tired? I don't have the time.’ (google)
(3) USA bør ikke ALDRIG være et forbilde ...
The US should not never) be an example ...’
(google)
Verb > negative
(1)
(2)
isi
ba-d-o
Koorete
she
disappear-PF-PST
`She disappeared' (Binyam 2007: 7).
‘isi dana ‘ush-u-wa-nni-ko
she 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)
Neg Cycle in terms of structure:
phrase to head
NegP
Neg’
Neg
ne
VP
V
DP/AP
no thing
Features: semantic > grammatical
The Subject Cycle
A. demonstrative > third person pron > clitic
> agreement
B. oblique > first/second pron > clitic >
agreement
(1) Shi diné bizaad
yíní-sh-ta'
I
Navajo language
3-1-study
‘As for me, I am studying Navajo.’
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.
The stages
Pronoun:
They (often) eat lasagna.
Clitic/ambiguous:
They’eat lasagna.
Emphatic and agreement: Them th’eat lasagna.
Pronoun:
Them (often) eat lasagna.
Typology
Bybee (1985: 30; 33): 56% of languages
show verbal agreement with the subject;
Siewierska (2008): 72%;
Dryer (2013): 61%.
Subject pronouns: 30% of Dryer (2013)
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
Old French: pronoun
(1)
Se je meïsme ne li
di
If
1S 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)
Modern Spoken French:
preverbal marker = agreement
Needs to be adjacent to the verb:
(1) *Je heureusement ai
vu
ça
1S probably
have seen that
`I’ve probably seen that.’
b.
Kurt, heureusement, a fait beaucoup …
Kurt fortunately has done many ...
`Fortunately, Kurt did many (other things)’
(google search of French websites)
Can no longer invert:
(2) Où
vas-tu
Standard French
where
go-2S
More evidence for agreement
No inversion:
(3) tu
vas où
Colloquial French
2S go where
‘Where are you going?‘
Needs to appear before the verb/aux:
(4) Je parle et je mange/*Je parle et mange
1S speak and 1S eat
Inflection is (mostly) gone
Standard written
Colloquial spoken
S
1
je chante
je chant
2
tu chantes
tu chant
3
il/elle chante
il/elle chant
P
1
nouschantons
on chant
2
vous chantez
vous chantez
3
ils/elles chantent
ils/elles chant
Renewal: doubling
(1)
moi je
trouve
ce
qui
en souffre …
me, 1S
think that who of.it suffers …
`I think that who suffers (most) is …
And third person has doubling:
(2)
Eux, ils
sont de
gauche.
them 3PM are
of
left
‘They are left-wing’.
(3)
si si un gosse il
suit
il
suit
if if a kid 3SM follows 3SM follows
‘If a kid follows, he follows’.
Or just the oblique
(1)
(2)
mais lui sait très bien présenter euh ses …
but him knew very well present uh his …
‘But he knew how to present his ... very well.’
reprochent aux professeurs sans voir que eux
sont responsables …
`They reproach the teachers without seeing that
they are responsible’.
First and second person plural
(1)
(2)
nous on appelle
ça
un k-way.
us
3S call
that a
k-way
‘We call this a k-way’.
Z’avez de
la
chance qu’on vous aime.
2P.have PRT
the luck that.3S you love
`You are lucky that we love you.’
(Stromae, Tous les Mêmes)
If pronoun = agreement, what
about preverbal negation and
object clitics?
(1)
>
(2)
Je ne l’ai
pas vu
1S not 3S.have not seen
‘I haven’t seen it.’
j'ai
pas encore démontré ça
I-have
NEGyet
proven that
‘I haven't yet proven that.’
Post-position, loss, and
reanalysis as agreement marker
of the object:
(1)
(2)
J’ai
trouvé hier.
1S.have found yesterday
‘I found it yesterday.’
j' en parle de ça en même temps
1S.it talk about thatat same time
‘I talk about it at the same time.’
Change preverbal > post verbal
Preverbal
postverbal
locative y
argument le, l’, la
45
196
Total
241
(In Orleans corpus)
là, etc
ça
70
106
176
As tree
TP
T’
T
VP
V’
DP
D
V
DP
Demonstrative > copula
(Li & Thompson 1977)
(1)
fu
Riches
(2)
yu
gui shi ren zhi suo yu ye
and honor this men GEN NOM desire PRT
‘Riches and honor, this is men’s desire.’
(Peyraube & Wiebusch 1994: 393)
Shi shi lie
gui
this is
violent
ghost
‘This is a violent ghost.’
(Peyraube & Wiebusch 1994: 398)
Modern Chinese
(1)
Lili yiqian
shi gui
Lily before
SHI ghost
'Lily was a ghost before.'(Hui-Ling Yang, p.c.)
(2)
D
>
shi
semantic [proximate]
formal
[i-3S]
Pred
shi
[identity]
Sranan
(McWhorter 1997: 88; 98)
(1)
(2)
Dí wómi
dε a
wósu
the woman is
at house
`The woman is at home.’
Hεn dà dí Gaamá
he is
the chief
‘He's the chief.’
Structurally
PredP
>
PredP
Pred’
DP
Shi
Pred
DP
gui
And loss of features!
Pred’
Pred
shui
DP
gui
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.
with features
Emphatic/oblique >
emphatic/noun
[semantic]
>
>
affix
agreement
[u-phi]
[u-#]
Specifier >
full pronoun
[i-phi]
Head
weak/clitic
[u-1/2] [i-3]
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]
Demonstrative
[i-phi]
[i-loc]
article
[u-phi]
pronoun C
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-T]
copula
[i-loc/id]
Innate vs acquired
shapes
negatives
`if’
real-unreal
mass-count
duration
grammatical number
negation
irrealis
progressive
Conclusions
Cycles is an old idea (Bopp etc).
Micro-cycles vs macro-cycles
Cycles provide us a window on the language
faculty: loss of semantic features and then
replacement. They also show structural
change.
Some references
Bahtchevanova, Mariana & Elly van Gelderen 2014. The French
Subject Cycle and the role of Objects. Ms.
Bybee, Joan 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan, Revere perkins, & William Pagliuca 1994. The
Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam 2014. Problems of Projection Extension. Ms.
Corpus d’entretiens spontanés, CdES, contains 155,000 words or
transcribed spoken French from 1988 to 1990;
https://www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads/80/mb016corpus.pdf.
ELICOP Corpus, includes the Orleans, Tours, and Auvergne
corpora. The Orléans (ESLO) Corpus contains
902,755 words
of transcribed spoken French from 1966 to 1970;
http://bach.arts.kuleuven.be/pmertens/corpus/search/t.html
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth 2000. The Change from Pronoun to
Clitic and the Rise of Null Subjects in Spoken Swiss French.
University of Arizona Diss.
Gabelentz, Georg von der 1891/1901. Die Sprachwissenshaft.
Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig:
Weigel.
Gelderen, Elly van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friderike Hünnemeyer 1991.
Grammaticalization. Chicago.
Hodge, Carleton 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Linguistic Sciences:
13: 1-7.
Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.
Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive
Link between Pronoun and Copula. Rice Dissertation.
Lambrecht, Knud 1981. Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in
Non Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Peyraube, Alain & Thekla Wiebusch (1994). Problems
relating to the history of different copulas in Ancient Chinese.
In Matthew Y. Chen & Ovid J.L. Tseng (eds), In Honor of
William S.Y. Wang, 383-404. Taipei: Pyramid Press.
Yang, Hui-Ling 2012. The Grammaticalization of Hakka,
Mandarin, Southern Min: The Interaction of Negation with
Modality, Aspect and Interrogatives. ASU Diss.