Transcript Linguistic Cyclicity - Arizona State University

Linguistic Cyclicity
Elly van Gelderen
Arizona State University
Madison, 25 January 2013
Outline
• Views on the cycle and on causes
• Micro and macrocyles
• Four examples
– Negative
– Subject
– Copula
– Demonstrative
• Explanations for the loss and renewal
• Some concerns
Heine et al’s three 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)
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).
Grammaticalization = one step
Hopper & Traugott 2003: content item >
grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix.
The loss in phonological content is, however, not a
necessary consequence of the loss of semantic
content (see Kiparsky 2011; Kiparsky &
Condoravdi 2006; Hoeksema 2009).
Kiparsky (2011: 19) writes “in the development of
case, bleaching is not necessarily tied to
morphological downgrading from postposition to
clitic to suffix.” Instead, according to Kiparsky,
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.
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.
ctd
L’Arrivée (2010) argues that a specific pragmatic
function, namely accessibility of a proposition to
the hearer, plays a role.
Language internal reasons have also been argued
as responsible for grammaticalization (and the
cycle) in Roberts & Roussou (2003) and van
Gelderen (2004; 2011). These authors have
suggested that the child in acquiring its
language makes choices based on economy
principles
Microcycle
(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 (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
Old Egyptian
Late Egyptian
Coptic
analytic
synthetic
analytic
synthetic
*Sm
sM
Sm
sM
August Wilhem von Schlegel seems to be
the first in 1818 to use the terms analytic
and synthetic where languages are
concerned.
Morphemes per word?
Attachment Type Cycle
Isolating
Inflectional
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
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)
Two Cycles
• Using an indefinite, e.g. nothing/never/a bit
– English, French, Arabic
• Using a new verb
– Chinese
• Using both
– Koorete, Athabaskan
The Negative Cycle
XP
Spec
na wiht
X'
X
not > n’t
YP
…
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.’
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)
Kitty and me 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.
%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 go'n 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?'
The flavors of copulas
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
(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)
Cape Verdean Creole
Individual-level
(3) a. (El) e
nha pai
‘He is
my father.’
b. (El) e
spertu
‘S/he
is
smart.’
Stage-level
(4) Bu sta livri
‘You are free.’ (Baptista 2002: 255)
Demonstratives > articles
(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)
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)
Cf. Dutch:
(3) Hij had Stern gesproken en aan deze
enige woorden en zaken uitgelegd, die hij
niet begreep. Die Stern niet begreep,
meen ik.
`He had talked to Stern and explained to
this one some words and matters which he
did not understand. Which Stern did not
understand, I mean'. (Multatuli, Max
Havelaar, chap 4, van Gelderen 1998).
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)
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]
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.
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.
Features of airplane and build
(adapted from Chomsky 1995: 231)
airplane
build
semantic:
e.g. [artifact]
e.g. [action]
phonological: e.g. [begins with a vowel; e.g. [one syllable]
two syllables]
formal:
intrinsic
optional
intrinsic
optional
[nominal]
[number]
[verbal]
[phi]
[3 person]
[Case]
[assign accusative] [tense]
[non-human]
The "much more important distinction“
(1995: 277):
Formal features are: interpretable and
uninterpretable
airplane
build
Interpr. [nominal]
[verbal]
[3 person]
[assign
[non-human]
accusative]
Uninterpr [Case]
[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!
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 learned
shapes
negatives
`if’
real-unreal
mass-count
duration
grammatical number
negation
irrealis
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
[i-phi]
[i-loc]
article
[u-phi]
pronoun C
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-T]
copula
[i-loc]
Conclusions
Recent shift towards third factors and
parametric features: we need to be careful
how many mechanisms we allow.
All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F
What does the Poverty of the Stimulus
argument mean for vocabulary
acquisition?
Explanations of the Cycle
Head Preference and Late Merge?
Or Feature Economy? What is it?
– Maximize syntax?
– Keep merge going?
– Lighter?