Transcript Formal Syntax and Language Change

The Copula Cycle:
Features and Principles of
Projection
Elly van Gelderen
17 June 2015
University of Greenwich
Outline
A little on generative historical syntax:
ambiguity/reanalysis – features are crucial
English copulas: renewal + reanalysis
Examples of Grammaticalization and
Linguistic Cycles: features + structure
The Demonstrative to Copula Cycle
Explanations and some challenges:
Principles of Projection.
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
L
Loss of manner; retention of Q-features
Grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is a unidirectional
loss/change from semantic to formal
(=grammatical) features.
For instance, a demonstrative with semantic
features, such as a distal with [location,
distance, entity], can be reanalyzed as
having only the grammatical features
[deictic, third] and then be a copula or
article. The flavor of the copula can be:
+/-permanence, id/loc, +/-realis
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/id]
(Diessel 1999 gives 17 grammaticalization
channels)
Grammaticalization tells us
which features matter
Subject and Object Agreement (Givón)
demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zero
noun > first and second person > agreement > zero
Copula (Katz)
demonstrative
third person
adposition
intransitive verb
> copula > zero
Noun (Greenberg)
demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zero
noun > number/gender > zero
And about processing/economy
Negative (Gardiner/Jespersen)
negative argument > negative adverb > negative
particle > zero
verb > aspect
> negative > C
(negative polarity cycle: Willis)
CP
Adjunct AP/PP > ... > C
Future and Aspect Auxiliary
A/P > M > T (> C)
V > ASP
Indo-European copulas > English:
Cyclical renewal of aspect/mood
No difference in copula depending on NP, PP, or
AP predicate but inside the ‘be’ paradigm:
*es (< Dem)
*bheu `grow’ > Latin fui
> Old English `be, become’
*wes `remain, dwell’
(*sta ‘stand’ > estar (Spanish), tha (Hindi), tá (Irish))
*wert ‘turn’ > vartate (Sanskrit), wairþan (Gothic),
and weorðan (OE)
Jost 1909, Campbell 1959, Wischer 2010,
Petré 2013
In Gmc s/b/w-distinction is mood-based (mixed
indicative and s- subjunctive)
OE: am, art, is, sind(on)
vs
beo ...
present/current situation
future/generic
ME: am, art, is
vs
beo ...
present Sg
Pl (later are)
Wischer (2010: 222): b-form in OE more frequent
in Pl than Sg;
Petré 2013: 303: b- used in ME for pl indic
So GMc mood > OE future > ME plural
Currently: again mood-based, be, been, being
Gmc and Early English > Mod English
New copulas arise for aspect and mood:
remain, stay, appear, sound, ... (60 or so)
Other languages select +/- permanence or
the type of predicate
English:
identifying: can only be be. (Huddleston &
Pullum 271)
classifying: aspectual, modal
location: aspectual
The English copula appear <
French intransitive ‘come into sight’
Ambiguity:
(1) Þat it may apere þat þe prescience is signe of
þis necessite. (OED, 374 Chaucer Boethius v. iv.
162)
(2) And the Lord siȝ, and it apperide yuel in hise
iȝen. (OED, a1425 Wycliffite Bible L.V. Royal
Isa. lix. 15)
(3)I am afraid of making them appear considerable
by taking notice of them. (OED,
1712 Steele Spectator 445.7)
PP
in hise i3en
V
apperide
[change]
[visual]
[uTh]
DP
it
[i-3S]
[Th]
> DP copula PP
or DP copula AP
remain < Anglo-Norman ‘stay
behind’: PP and AP
(1) so shall remayn be the grace of God all the
days of myn liff (Visser I: 195, 1460, Paston 4.5)
(2) the great primar, whiche before daies I gave to
my wif, remayn styll to her. (OED, 1513 Will of
Robert Fabyan in R. Fabyan New Chron.
Eng. (1811) Pref. p. vii)
(3) The lyppes of the membre remaynedene holy
together. (a1450 Arderne 17th Internat. Congr.
Med. (1914) xxiii. 121)
PP Pred
to her
remayn
V
DP
[loc] DP
PP
remayn primar
[dur] primar to her
[location] [i-3S]
[duration] [Th]
[uTh]
Many other intransitives > copulas,
e.g. stay < Old French (Latin stare)
late ME ‘to stop’ and keep the meaning of
`stay/dwell’ and copula in:
(1) That this their meate may not stay long
vndigested in their stomackes, they sup off
the foresaid broth. (OED, 1600 J. Pory tr.
J. Leo Africanus Geogr. Hist. Afr. i. 20)
Rest of the talk
Examples of Dem > Cop
chosen from many language families:
Afro-Asiatic, IE, Creole, Austronesian ...
Explanation will in terms of
features
and projection/labeling
Phrase to head but original flavor is kept
Old Egyptian (1) > Middle (2)
(1)
rmt p-n
ntr-w jp-w
man MS-PROX
god-P
MP-DIST
`this man.’
`those gods.’
(2) ̩tmj-t pw jmn-t
city-F be west-F
`The West is a city.’
(Loprieno 1995; 2001)
(3) p
-w
>
pw
[i-3MS]
[distal]
copula (pst/pr)
Structurally:
Specifier to head
Hebrew
(Faltz 1973; Berman & Grosu 1976)
(1) david
(hu)
ha-melex
David
SM
the-ruler
‘David is the king.’
(2) hu melex
'al jisra'el
‘He ruled
over Israel.’
(3) ‘ata hu ha-is
2SM SM the-man
`You are the man.’ (Katz 1996: 86-90)
Still pronoun because the lo negative
precedes verb but not hu (Faltz: 7)
(4)
*moshe lo hu ayef
moshe NEG he tired
(5) moshe hu lo ayef
moshe he NEG tired
`Moshe isn’t tired.’
The eyno negative is incompatible because
it has a pronominal suffix:
(6) *moshe hu eyno
ayef
moshe he NEG.3SM tired
Classical to Standard Arabic
(cf. Eid 1983, Alsaeedi 2015)
Classical = pronoun
(1) allahu
huwa
‘lhayyu
God
3MS
the.living
‘God is the living.’ (Benveniste 1966 [1971: 165])
Standard = copula
(2) Anta
huwa
D-Dakii
2MS
COP
the-smart
`You are the smart one’
(Alsaeedi 31; newspaper 2012)
Hijazi Arabic (Alsaeedi 2015)
(3)
ahmad
ma hu(wa)
ad-duktoor
Ahmad
NEG MS
the-doctor
`Ahmad is not the doctor.’ (Alsaeedi 39)
ma + huwa/hiya, etc = mu/mi
(4) ana mu ad-duktoor
1S NEG-be
the-doctor
`I am not the doctor.’ (Alsaeedi 40)
(5) huda mi (ma hiya/mu) ad-duktoorah
Huda NEG.be.F
the-doctor-FS
`Huda is not the (female) doctor.’ (Alsaeedi 41)
Egyptian Arabic
(Edwards 2006: 51-3)
(6) a. `ana huwwa
l-mas’u:l
1S he
the-responsible
‘I am the responsible.’
b. il-mushkila
hiyya
T-Talaba
the-problem(FS) she
the-students
`The problem is the students.’
(7) faTma
ma-hiyya:-sh
il-mas’u:la
Fatima NEG-be.3SF-NEG the-responsible
`Fatima is not the one responsible.’
Arabic changes
huwwa
i-3MS
>
hu(wwa)
u-phi (gender/number)
i-pres
equative
Specifier to Head: Spec TP > T (but could
be Spec PredP > Pred)
Korn 2011 on E. Iranian
(cf also Benveniste 1959)
Wakhi pronominal clitics < be
(1)
tu=t
kui
2S=PRO who
`Who are you.’
(2) chis xabar
tei
wat news
is
`What’s the matter?’
(both from Morgenstierne 1938, taken from
Korn 2011: 55)
Polish (Indo-European, Slavic, from
Rutkowski 2006, Bondaruk 2013)
Adam
(to) był lingwistą
Adam
PRT was linguist
‘Adam was a linguist.’
Both are optional in the present:
(2) Jan to
jest mój najlepszy przyjaciel
Jan PRT is my best friend
To can only link identical categories: not DP and
PP.
(1)
Argument vs adjunct
(3) Adam był lingwistą, mieszkając w NH
Adam was linguist living in New Haven
‘Adam was a linguist when he lived in New
Haven.’
(4) *Adam to był lingwista, mieszkając w NH
Adam TO was linguist living in New Haven
(Rutkowski 2006)
(But still lots of debate, e.g. regarding low to
in Bondaruk 237)
Similar `lag’ in Russian
Optional Demonstrative:
(1) Pyotr,
eto nash doctor
Pyotr
this our doctor
`Pyotr, he is our doctor.’
(2) *Pyotr,
on bolen/nash doctor
Pyotr
he sick/our doctor
`Peter, (he is) sick.’
(3) Pyotr (on) byl bolen
P
he was sick
(data from Tatyana Slobodchikoff)
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/classification
vs location
Saramaccan
equative
–
identificational da
class membership da/dɛ
locative
dɛ
(McWhorter 2005: 117-8; 171)
NigerianPidgin
be/na
(Mazzoli 2013: 91)
-
de
Galo (Tibeto-Burman, Tali)
In Galo, əə functions as topic marker as well
as unmarked copula and derives from a
(proximal) demonstrative, according to
Post:
(1)
bɨɨ̀ ŋó-kə ̀
azèn
əə
3S 1S-GEN friend
ART →
3S 1S-GEN friend
COP
‘He is my friend.’ (Post 2007 : 429)
Swahili (Bantu; Lingua Franca)
McWhorter (1992): very fast change to
Modern Swahili with ni for all copula uses.
This ni derives from a presentative:
(1) vita ni taabu
war that trouble, `war is trouble.’
There is currently also a pronominal
strategy:
(2) Hamisi yu mpishi
H
3S cook
`Hamisi is a cook.’
Early Modern Swahili C17-18
Older Swahili had (mainly locative) li:
(3) Tu-li-po
1P-be-here
`We are here.’
(Knappert 1969, from McWhorter 1992: 20)
but was reanalyzed around 1900 as past
tense affix and was replaced by ni and
pronouns (and kept zero). Now ni is renewed
with locative -ko.
(McWhorter’s cause for rapid change: L2)
Zoque (Mixe–Zoque)
Demonstrative and copula co-occur in:
(1)
(2)
Te’ tuwi kanaŋbüde
te’ tuwi 0-kanaŋ=pü=te
DET dog 3B-old=REL=PRED
‘The dog is old’ (Faarlund 2012: 141-2)
te xka’e
che’bü
te’
DET girl
small
she
`The girl, she is small.’
Passamaquoddy (Ng 2004)
Demonstratives show three deictic
categories, number, animacy, and obviation,
but the ambiguous use is the distal
inanimate, mostly inflected for number:
(1) Yektok
nit
taktal-ok
Anim.Rem.P Inan.dist.S
doctor-P
`Those are the doctors.’ (Ng 29)
Now, the well-known example:
Old Chinese > Modern
(1)
(2)
(3)
Shi shi
lie
gui
this COP violent
ghost
‘This is a violent ghost.’
(Peyraube & Wiebusch 1994: 398)
Zhe shi
lie
gui
this COP
violent ghost
‘This is a violent ghost.’
Ta bu shi lie
gui
3S NEG COP violent ghost
`He’s not a violent ghost.’
(Hui-Ling Yang p.c. for 2 and 3)
Shi is also past
(4)
wo qu.nian shi xuesheng
1S last.year COP student
`Last year, I was a student.’
(Hui-Ling Yang p.c.)
(Future needs a modal, e.g. hui)
Now also:
(5) wo bushi
bu xihuan
tamen
1S neg.be neg like
3P
`Me, it is not that I don’t like them.’
Equation and location
D
>
shi
semantic [proximate]
formal
[i-3S]
P
>
zai
semantic [place]
V
shi
[identity]
V
zai
[location]
Croft Cycle (Samoan, Polynesian)
Negative particle lə and existential verb iai
`be’ are now used as negative prefix in (2):
(1) E
leai
se mea
TAM NEG.exist
ART thing
`There is nothing.’
(2) E
leai gaoi Sina
TAM NEGmove Sina
`Sina didn’t move.’
(Mosel & Hovdhaugen 1992: 481)
Indonesian (Austronesian)
Adalah and ialah are optional copulas, used
formally. Ialah is only used with 3rd person.
(1) Itu (adalah/ialah) Elly
`it be Elly.’
Their origin:
ada + lah = `presence/exist’ + emphatic
ia + lah
= 3rd ps + emphatic
Lah + subject is used:
(2) ini-lah
rumah-na
this-EMP home-3
`This is his home.’ (Tendeloo 1901: 259)
Ada
Ada is used for existence and locatives
(3) Ia ada
di rumah
3S be.loc
at home
`He is at home.’
(4) Ada
tamu
be.exi
visitor
`There is a visitor.’ (Kwee 135)
and many other uses....
Indonesian ctd
Sneddon (1996: 238) says that adalah/ialah
are not verbs because they precede the
negative but this is rare. Other verbs are
typically used with negatives, e.g. merupakan
`be’.
The ti-ada negative is competing (Croft 1991)
The demonstrative itu may be renewing the
copula (Verhaar p.c. to Nicholas) but no itu
itu... (Peter Suwarno p.c.)
Indonesian copulas
-
ia + lah
>
be
[i-3] EMP
[i-3]
ada (+ lah)
>
be
negative `be’ tiada > negative
itu
>
?
merupakan
Croft’s Existential Cycle
Type A
Regular NEG
Type B
NEG + NEG EXIST
Type C
NEG = NEG EXIST
Neg+ copula > Neg
Kannada
(1) raSmi na:Le
haLe:bi:Dige ho:g-utt-a:Le
Rashmi tomorrow Haledib.DAT go-NPST-3SG.F
`Rashmi goes to Haledib tomorrow.’
(2) anil
ka:le:jige
ho:gu-vud-illa
Anil
college.DAT
go-NPST.GER-NEG
'Anil won't/doesn't go to college.‘
(Miestamo 2005: 78, based on Sridhar 1990: 112, 220,
adapted from vd Auwera & Vossen)
Cf. Tamil (Asher 1985, Croft 1991: 17)
(3) aanatan
uurle
ille
Anand
town.LOC be.neg
Ch’orti’ Maya
(1)
ma-tuk’a
e
wy-a’r
NEG-what
ART eat-NOM
`There isn’t any food.’
(for positive, there is a verb ayan).
(2) Ma-ja’x ch’ok
NEG-3 young
`It isn’t new/young.’
(Dugan 2013: 140; 142)
Chol Mayan (Coon 2006)
`añ `exist, be’; no copula (even in past)
ma `añ SL negative; mač IL negative
(1) mač k-om
mahlel
tyi k-otyoty
NEG 1E-want go
P 1E-house
‘I don’t want to go to my house.’
(2) ma`añ mi k-mahlel tyi eskwela
NEG IMPF 1E-go PREP school
‘I’m not going to school.’
(1)
(2)
wo
mei you shu
Chinese
I
not
exist book
`I don't have a book.’
Yao Shun ji
mo
...
Old Chinese
Yao Shun
since died
`Since Yao and Shun died, ...' (from Lin 2002: 5)
Early Mandarin
(3)
yu
de
wang ren
mei kunan, ...
wish
PRT died person not-be
suffering
`If you wish that the deceased one has no suffering, ...'
(Dunhuang Bianwen, from Lin 2002: 5-6)
(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.' (from Lin
2002: 8)
Mei < `not be’
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
Adjunct/Argument Specifier Head (of NegP) affix
semantic >
[i-NEG]> [u-NEG]
>
-Modal Cycle
Verb
>
AUX
[volition, expectation, future]
[future]
Copula Cycle
Demonstrative > copula
[loc, id, i-phi]
[loc,id] or [u-phi]
Where do features come from?
Chomsky (1965: 142): “semantic features ...
too, are presumably drawn from a
universal ‘alphabet’ but little is known
about this today and nothing has been
said about it here.”
EvG: 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).
Explanations of the (Copula) Cycle
Recent shift towards third factors and parametric
features: Minimize structure and movement.
This can be seen in terms of Feature Economy:
All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F
Or since Moro (1997): XP – YP is problematic;
Chomsky (2013; 2015) Principles of Projection.
Chomsky has 2 ways out of the XP YP labeling
paradox: movement and feature sharing
My take on this: XP > X.
??
DP
PredP
Pred’
that Pred
>
DP
the
chief
Pred
DP
that the
chief
Conclusions
Unidirectional change provides a window on
the language faculty. Cycles are relevant to
gain insight into features and structural
economy.
Which are the features that need renewal
Why is Spec > head so prevalent?
Labeling?.
Selected References
Alsaeedi, Mekhlid 2015. The Rise of New Copulas in
Arabic. ASU MA.
Benveniste, Emile 1960. The linguistic functions of to be
and to have. In Problems in General Linguistics.
Bondaruk, Anna 2013. Copular Clauses in English and
Polish. Lublin.
Chomsky, Noam 2013 Problems of Projection. Lingua.
Chomsky, Noam 2014 Problems of Projection: Extensions.
Croft, William 1991. The Evolution of negation. Journal of
Linguistics 27: 1-27.
Curme, George 1935. Parts of Speech and Accidence.
D.C. Heath.
Eid, M. 1983. The copula function of pronouns. Lingua 59:
197-207.
Faarlund, Jan Terje 2012. A Grammar of Chiapas Zoque.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faltz, Aryeh 1973. Surrogate Copulas in Hebrew. ms.
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hodge, Carleton 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Linguistic
Sciences 13: 1-7.
Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the
Cognitive Link between Pronoun and Copula. Rice
Dissertation.Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic
Cycle. Oxford University Press.
Korn, Agnes 2011. Pronouns as Verbs. In Korn et al.
Wiesbaden; Reichert.
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.
Mazzoli, Maria 2013. Copulas in Nigerian Pidgin. Padova
dissertation.
McWhorter, John 2005. Defining Creole. OUP.
McWhorter, John 1994. From Focus Marker to Copula in
Swahili. Berkeley Linguistics Society: 57-66.ion. Berlin:
Mouton.
Miestamo, Matti 2005. Standard Negat
Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen 1992. Samoan
Reference Grammar. Oslo.
Petré, Peter 2014. Constructions and environments. OUP.
Post, Mark 2007. A Grammar of Galo. La Trobe
Dissertation.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the
Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP.
Stassen, Leon 1997. Intransitive Predication. OUP.
Yang, Hui-Ling 2012.