https://ebookmass.com/product/parameter-hierarchies-anduniversal-grammar-ian-roberts/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Comparative international law Roberts
https://ebookmass.com/product/comparative-international-law-roberts/
ebookmass.com
Year One Nora Roberts
https://ebookmass.com/product/year-one-nora-roberts/
ebookmass.com
Death and Croissants Ian Moore
https://ebookmass.com/product/death-and-croissants-ian-moore/ ebookmass.com
The "Wicked" List (El-Mitra Family Book 3) Elizabeth Lennox
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wicked-list-el-mitra-familybook-3-elizabeth-lennox/
ebookmass.com
Wolf Rebel Paige Tyler
https://ebookmass.com/product/wolf-rebel-paige-tyler/
ebookmass.com
Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods 11th Edition – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/family-therapy-concepts-andmethods-11th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
ebookmass.com
Kanski’s Clinical Ophthalmology. A Systematic Approach 9th Edition John F. Salmon
https://ebookmass.com/product/kanskis-clinical-ophthalmology-asystematic-approach-9th-edition-john-f-salmon/
ebookmass.com
The Legend of Boot Hill 04 Gunfight at Last Hope Canyon Harlan Finchley
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-legend-of-boot-hill-04-gunfight-atlast-hope-canyon-harlan-finchley/
ebookmass.com
Crimson Fate: A Dark Mafia Romance Wendy Owens
https://ebookmass.com/product/crimson-fate-a-dark-mafia-romance-wendyowens/
ebookmass.com
The Devil's Curse: Scions of the Underworld Book 2 P.S Scott
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-devils-curse-scions-of-theunderworld-book-2-p-s-scott/
ebookmass.com
ParameterHierarchiesandUniversalGrammar RETHINKINGCOMPARATIVESYNTAX TheSyntaxofYesandNo
AndersHolmberg
VerbPlacementinRomance
AComparativeStudy
NormaSchifano
Person,Case,andAgreement
TheMorphosyntaxofInverseAgreementandGlobalCaseSplits AndrásBárány
ParameterHierarchiesandUniversalGrammar
IanRoberts
CaseandAgreementAlignmentinRomanceandBeyond MichelleSheehan
AFeaturalTypologyofBantuAgreementandNominalLicensing JennekevanderWal
RethinkingVerbSecond
EditedbyRebeccaWoodsandSamWolfe
Parameter Hierarchiesand UniversalGrammar IANROBERTS GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford, ,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©IanRoberts
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CRYY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ThisbookisdedicatedtoUndegEnfysMoody,ofCardiff,and tothememoryof ‘ThomasRoberts’,allegedlyofLlandudno.
Contents Acknowledgements xi
Listofabbreviations xiii
Introduction
.Parameters
. The ‘classical ’ viewofPrinciplesandParametersanditsproblems
.. Chomsky()anditsantecedents
.. TheexplanatoryvalueoftheP&Papproach
.. ThescopeofP&Ptheory
. Questionsforclassicalparametertheory:theRomancelanguages
Variationinsubjectclitics
Variationinnegation
.. Variationinenclisisofobjectclitics
.. Variationinpast-participleagreement
.. Variationinthenatureandchoiceofaspectualauxiliaries
.. AcomparisonwithJapanese
. Micro-andmacroparameters
Infavourofmicroparameters
FormalfeaturesandtheBorer–ChomskyConjecture
... Microparametersandrestrictiveness
... Languageacquisition
... Underspecificationandtheformofparameters
... Conclusiononmicroparametricapproaches
.. Macroparameters:Baker(a)
Combiningmicro-andmacroparameters
Ataxonomyofparameters
.. Macroparameters
.. Mesoparameters
.. Microparameters
.. Nanoparameters
.. Conclusion
Parameterhierarchies
Parametersandthethreefactorsoflanguagedesign
.. Twothird-factorprinciples
.. Thelearningprocedure
.. Consequencesoftheapproach:aparameterhierarchy
.. Extendingemergentism
. Summaryandconclusion
.WordorderandtheFinal-Over-FinalCondition
Introduction:theheadparameter,antisymmetry, andlinearization
TheFinal-Over-FinalCondition
. EmpiricalmotivationforFOFC
ClausalwordorderinGermanic
FOFCattheCP/TPlevel
Mixedprojectionsinthenominaldomain:Finnish andLatin
Morphology
Diachronicevidence
Conclusion:summaryoftheempiricalmotivation forFOFC
AccountingforFOFC
.. FOFCintermsofmovement:Biberauer,Holmberg, &Roberts()
Extendedprojectionsandlocality
FOFCandapproachestolinearization
Labelling,cyclicity,andFOFC
Thetheoryofword-ordervariation
. Formulatingtheword-orderhierarchy
.
. FOFC,Universal ,andtheword-orderhierarchy
Theword-orderhierarchyandroll-upparameters
Conclusion:interactingfactorsincross-linguistic word-ordervariation
.Nullsubjects
. Introduction
. Preliminaries:abriefhistoryandinitialtypology ofnullsubjects
Abriefhistoryofthenull-subjectparameter
ConsistentNSLs
.. PartialNSLs
.. Radical/discoursepro-droplanguages
.. AtypologyofNSLs(firstpass)
. Theinternalstructureof ‘pro’
.. Barbosa(toappear):similaritiesbetweenpartial andradicalNSLs
ExtensiontoCNSLs
ThetypologyofNSLs(secondpass)
.
Thenatureof ‘pro’
Aspectsofthesemanticsof ‘pro’
.
.
.. ‘Pro’ andthePersonfeature
.. ‘Pro-licensing’ andthetypologyofnullsubjects
Arbitrarypronouns
Arbitrary ‘pro’ inCNSLsandtheexternalargument
.. Interpretationsofarbs
.. FourobservationsaboutEnglisharbelements
.. Arbacrosslanguages
TheFinnishG-pronoun(Holmberg b)
Germanimpersonalpassives
... Turkishimpersonalpassives
.. Twowaystolicensearbitrarypronouns
. φ-features:hierarchiesandinterfaces
.. φ-features, φ-hierarchies,and φ-parameters
.. Thequestionof ‘richagreement’
No-choiceparametersand φ-features
Conclusions:thenatureofnullsubjectsandthe null-subjectparameterhierarchy
.Incorporation
. Introduction
. TheinternalstructureofandrelationsinDP
.. N–Drelations:Longobardi()
Longobardi()onnominalmapping
Parametersofnominalmapping
.. PersonandtheinternalstructureofDP
.. Conclusion
. Polysynthesisandnoun-incorporation
.. Baker():thebasicgeneralizationanditsconsequences
.. Branigan():multiplehead-movement
Syntacticanalyticity
AnalyticityinDP
.. AnalyticityinvP
.. Analyticityinoperators
.. Analyticmodification
.. Conclusion
. Conclusions:ahierarchyforindividual-denotingfeatures
.Verb-movement
Introduction
. AverybriefexcursusintoDavidsonianevent semantics(Davidson )
. Tenseandtheeventvariable
.. Strong-Tenselanguages:verb-movementinRomance
.. Weak-Tenselanguages:Englishandelsewhere
TheEnglishauxiliarysystem
ANo-Tenselanguage:Chineseagain
. Furthervariationinverb-movement
.. V-initiallanguages
... TypeAV-initiallanguages
... TypeBV-initiallanguages
.. Germanicverb-second
Diachronicimplicationsofparametertaxonomy:conditional inversioninthehistoryofEnglish
. Conclusions:macrotypologyofPersonandTense
.Caseandalignment
Introduction
Passives
Adjectivalandverbalpassives;passivesandimpersonals
Voice,passives,andexternal θ-roles
Aparameterhierarchyforpassives
Thecoreparameter
Thegeneralizationparameter
Therestrictionparameter
TheEPPparameter
SuppressionofVoice’sPersonfeatures
Someputativeuniversalsofpassives
Furtherquestions:passivesofverbswithclausal complements
Conclusion
Ergativity
Introduction
Thenatureofergativealignment
Aparameterhierarchyforergativealignments
Someimplicationaluniversalsconcerningergativity
Conclusion
. OtherCase-relatedhierarchies:causativesandditransitives
Causatives
Ditransitives
. Conclusion:thenatureofalignmenthierarchies
.
. Conclusion:Casemacroparameters
. Wh-movementandnegation
. Introduction
. Wh-parameters
Wh-movementparameters
Q-particles
.
.
. Cheng’s()generalizations
AbstractQ-particles
Conclusion
Negation
Negativeconcordandmultiplenegation
Clausalnegators
Conclusion
Conclusion
.Conclusion:towardsaminimalisttheoryofsyntacticvariation
References
Indexoflanguages
Indexofnames
Acknowledgements Mythanksaredue firstandforemosttotheEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC), whoseawardoftheAdvancedGrant ‘RethinkingComparativeSyntax’ (ReCoS, ERCAdGNo. )intheperiod – fundedtheresearchreportedhere, alongwithmuchelse(seehttps://recos-dtal.mml.cam.ac.uk/).Iamgratefulalsoto theUniversityofCambridgeforawardingmesabbaticalleaveintheperiod October toJanuary ,inwhichthe firstdraftsofwhatfollowswere written.
Manypeoplehavecontributedindifferentwaystothedevelopmentoftheideas thatIhavetriedtoelucidatehere,althoughnobodyotherthanmeshouldbeheld responsiblefortheendresult.Aboveall,mythankstotheoriginalthree(Principal/ Senior)ResearchAssociatesontheReCoSproject:TheresaBiberauer,Michelle Sheehan,andJennekevanderWal.IwastheluckiestPIinhistory.Additional thankstotheotherRecosians:AndrásBárány,TimBazalgette,AlisonBiggs,Jamie Douglas,GeorgHöhn,AndersHolmberg,KariKinn,MariekeMeelen,andSam Wolfe.AndtotheextendedRecosians:VíctorAcedo-Matellán,HannahAjer,Luigi Andriani,AlastairAppleton,JimBaker,EkaterinaChernova,ValentinaColasanti, AliceCorr,MaiaDuguine,AnnaHollingsworth,FreddyXuhuiHu,AritzIrurtzun, CherryLam,AdamLedgeway,PinoLongobardi,MariosMavrogiorgos,Dimitris Michelioudakis,MorenoMitrović,IainMobbs,JoePerry,AfraPujoliCampeny, CraigSailor,NormaSchifano,GiuseppinaSilvestri,IoannaSitaridou,Julio ChenchenSong,MariaOlimpiaSquillaci,IanthiTsimpli,GeorgeTsoulas,Bert Vaux,StenVikner,GeorgeWalkden,JeffreyWatumull,andDavidWillis.
WhileonleaveIspentalmostthreesemestersattheUniversityofConnecticut. I’dliketothankthefacultyandstudentsthereformakingmesowelcome andeffectivelymakingUConnmysecondhome:KarinaBertolino,Jonathan Bobaljik,XeniaBogomolets, ŽeljkoBošković,AndreaCalabrese,PietroCerrone, ChristosChristopoulos,MarcinDadan,PaulaFenger,YoshikiFujiwara,Jon Gajewski,MagdaKaufmann,StefanKaufmann,PashaKoval,LilyKwok,Renato Lacerda,SabineLaszakovits,DianeLillo-Martin,GabrielMartinezVera,Troy Messink,JairoNunes,HiromuneOda,VanessaPetroj,RobertoPetrosino,Hiroaki Saito,MamoruSaito,LauraSnider,WilliamSnyder,JonSprouse,Adrian Stegovec,BrendanSugrue,YutaTatsumi,HarryvanderHulst,ShuyanWang, SusiWurmbrand,ChantaleYunt,andShenZheng.SpecialthankstoAndrea CalabreseandJairoNunesforco-teachingandtoTamaraCohenformaking everythinghappen.
WhenIwasn’tinStorrs,CT,IwasmostlyinCambridge,MA(akatheOther Cambridge,NewCambridge,Newtowne,etc.).There,thankstothegoodofficesof JimHuang,IwasabletoworkinHarvard’sWidenerLibrary,wherethemajority ofthepagestofollowwerewritten.ThankstoJim,andtoBobBerwick,Gennaro Chierchia,NoamandValeriaChomsky,TolliEythórsson,JayJasanoff, LoesKoring,ShigeiruMiyagawa,andJennekevanderWalfordinnersand conversationsinandaroundthatCambridge.
Andthentomy firstlinguistichome,theUniversityofSouthernCalifornia, whereItaughtinFall .ThankstoThomasBorer,BhamatiDash,Hajime Hoji,StefanKeine,AudreyLi,MythiliMenon,RoumiPancheva,DanielPlesniak, BarrySchein,AndrewSimpson,andMaria-LuisaZubizarreta.Acrosstown atUCLA,thankstoTimStowell(especiallyforaquickoutdoortutorialon thestructuralrepresentationoftense),AnoopMahajan,HildaKoopman,and DominiqueSportiche.LastbutnotleasttomywonderfulhostsinWest Hollywood,BenandJavier.
Manyothershavecontributedindifferentwaystotheideastofollow.It’ s unrealistictotrytothankeveryone,andsomyapologiestothoseImayhave missed.Butanyway,foradvice,comments,encouragement,helpwithfactchecking,theory-checking,brain-checking,reality-checking,andfeaturechecking,aswellasalltheotherelementsthatgointocreatingathingofthis kind,mythanksto,atleast:EdithAldridge,LauraArman,PilarBarbosa,Balthasar Bickel,PhilBranigan,SoniaCyrino,ProbalDasgupta,MicheldeGraff,Stéphanie Durrelman-Tame,LuisEguren,YasuyukiFukatomi,RolandHinterhölzl,Marit Julien,SahooKalyamalini,MaryKato,RichieKayne,JaklinKornfilt,Diane Massam,JimMcCloskey,NeilMyler,MagdaOiry,LuigiRizzi,UrShlonsky, GaryThoms,RaffaellaZanuttini,andHeddeZeijlstra.
Lastbutnotleast,aspecialthankstoFritzNewmeyer.Fritz’ s book Possible andProbableLanguages ‘rousedmefrommydogmaticslumbers’ regardingthe classicalprinciples-and-parametersapproach.Although,aswillbeevident, IheartilydisagreewithFritz’sconclusions,IfeltIhadtojustifymydisagreement. Atlength.I’msureFritzinhisturnwilldisagreewithmuch ifnotall ofwhat Isayhere.Andthatisexactlyasitshouldbe.Ideasarenothouseplants,aswiser headshaveobserved.
Finally(really!),thankstoJuliaSteerandVickiSunteratOUP,whodon’tcount words(Ihope).
IanRoberts
(Old)Cambridge August
Listofabbreviations Inthisbook,Iciteexamplesfromawiderangeofsourcesonvariouslanguages whoseglossingconventionsarenotalwaysconsistent.Intheinterestsofconsistency,Ihavetriedtomaketheglossesasuniformaspossible,althoughIhavenot triedtofollowtheLeipzigconventions.Myapologiestotheauthorsofthesources IhaveusediftheyfeelthatIhaveinanywaymisrepresentedtheirdata.The glossesareasuniformandaccurateaspossible,althoughincertaincaseseither uniformityoraccuracy(orboth)mayhavebeenlostowingtolackofinformation orsimplyignoranceonmypart.Iamresponsibleforallerrorsandinaccuraciesof thiskind.Whenindoubt,thereaderisadvisedtoconsulttheoriginalsource.
&(P)coordination(phrase)
// first/second/thirdperson
=cliticizedto
.affixedto/fusedwith
AAgent/Actor,namelysubjectofatransitiveclause
Ablablativecase/Case
Absabsolutivecase/Case
Accaccusativecase/Case
AcIaccusativewiththeinfinitive
Adjadjunct
Adv(i)adverb (ii)adverbialcase
Afaffix
Agragreement
AgrOPobjectagreementphrase
AgrPagreementphrase
Antanterior
Aoraorist
APadjectivalphrase
A–Particulatory–perceptual(interface)
Appl(P)applicative(phrase)
Arbarbitrarypronoun/reference
Aspaspect(ual)
AspPaspectphrase
ATBacrosstheboard
Aux(P)auxiliary(phrase)
AuxVauxiliary –verborder
BCCBorer–ChomskyConjecture
BPBrazilianPortuguese
CheadofCPand/orcomplementizerposition
Causcausative
CIconditionalinversion
C–Iconceptual–intentional(interface)
CLclitic
Clclassifier
CLLDcliticleftdislocation
CNSLconsistentnull-subjectlanguage
COMPcomplementizer
Complcompletiveaspect
Condconditional(mood)
Conjconjunction
Contcontinuous
Copcopular
CPcomplementizerphrase
Datdativecase/Case
Decldeclarative
Defdefiniteness
Dem(P)demonstrative(phrase)
Distrdistributive
DMDistributedMorphology
DOdirectobject
DOCdoubleobjectconstruction
DOMDifferentialObjectMarking
D(P)determiner(phrase)
Dudual
ECMExceptionalCaseMarking
ECPEmptyCategoryPrinciple
EFedgefeature
ENEEarlyModernEnglish
EPEuropeanPortuguese
EPPExtendedProjectionPrinciple
Ergergative(case)
ESTExtendedStandardTheory
Explexpletive
F(i)feature (ii)feminine
FEFeatureEconomy
FFformalfeature
Fin(P) finiteness(phrase)
FLlanguagefaculty
FLBFacultyofLanguageintheBroadsense
FLNFacultyofLanguageintheNarrowsense
Foc(P)focus(phrase)
FOFCFinal-Over-FinalCondition
Force(P)force(phrase)
FPfunctionalprojection
FrFrench
FRMfeaturalrelativizedminimality
Futfuture
GAgeneticalgorithm
GBGovernment-Binding(Theory)
Gengenitivecase/Case
Gergerund
Hhead
Habhabitual
HCHaitianCreole
HOGHolmberg’sothergeneralization
Honhonorific
iFinterpretablefeature
IEIndo-European
IGInputGeneralization
Impimperative
Indindicative
Indefindefinite
Ineinessive
Infinfinitive
I(NFL)(verbal)inflection
Instinstrumentalcase/Case
Intinterrogative
Intrintransitive
Invinversion
IOindirectobject
IOCLindirect-objectclitic
IPinflectionalphrase
Ipfvimperfective
ItItalian
KPcasephrase
L firstlanguage,nativelanguage
L secondlanguage
LASecondLanguageAcquisition
LADLanguageAcquisitionDevice
LCALinearCorrespondenceAxiom
LFLogicalForm
LIlexicalitem
Loclocativecase/Case
LocCLlocativeclitic
Mmasculine
MEMiddleEnglish
MGPModularizedGlobalParametrization
MHGMiddleHighGerman
ModModern
Mod(P)modality(phrase)
MMMMaximizeMinimalMeans
MPMinimalistProgram
Nneuter
NEModernEnglish
Negnegator/negative
NegPnegationphrase
NInounincorporation
NIDNorthernItaliandialect
Nmlznominalizer
Nomnominative
N(P)noun(phrase)
NPInegativepolarityitem
NSLnull-subjectlanguage
Num(P)number(phrase)
O(i)old (ii)object
Obloblique
OCOldChinese
OCLobjectclitic
OCSOldChurchSlavonic
OEOldEnglish
OHGOldHighGerman
ONOldNorse
Opoperator
Optoptative
OVobject–verb(order)
OVSobject–verb–subject(order)
P(i)objectofatransitiveclause (ii)parameter/property
P&PPrinciplesandParameters
Passpassive
Patpatient
PCMParametricComparisonMethod
Perfperfect
Persperson
PFPhonologicalForm
Pfvperfect(ive)
PICPhaseImpenetrabilityCondition
(P)IE(Proto-)Indo-European
Plplural
PLDPrimaryLinguisticData
PNSLpartialnull-subjectlanguage
Pol(P)polarity(phrase)
Posspossessive
P(P)preposition(alphrase)
pptpast/passiveparticiple
Predpredicate
Prespresent
Pretpreterite
Prt(P)particle(phrase)
Pstpast
Qquestion/interrogative(particle)
Q(P)quantifier(phrase)
QUDquestionunderdiscussion
RAHrichagreementhypothesis
ReCoSRethinkingComparativeSyntax
Refl reflexive
Relrelative/relativizer
RMrelativizedminimality
RNSLradicalnull-subjectlanguage
RoRomanian
S(i)subjectofanintransitiveclause (ii)sentence (iii)subject
SAISubject–AuxiliaryInversion
SATBGStartAtTheBottomgeneralization
SCsmallclause
SCLsubjectclitic
SFstylisticfronting
Sgsingular
SicSicilian
SIDSouthernItaliandialect
SMTStrongMinimalistThesis
SOsyntacticobject
SOVsubject–object–verb(order)
SpSpanish
Specspecifierposition
Statstative
Subsubordinate
Subjuncsubjunctive
Sufsuffix
SVOsubject–verb–object(order)
ttrace(ofmovedelement)
TLATriggeringLearningAlgorithm
TMATense,Mood,andAspect
T(P)tense(phrase)
Trtransitive
uFuninterpretablefeature
U
Universal
UGUniversalGrammar
UPUniformitarianPrinciple
V verb-initial
V verb-second
vi featurevalue
VOverb–object(order)
VOSverb–object–subject(order)
v(P)lightverb(phase)
V(P)verb(phrase)
VSOverb–subject–object(order)
WALS WorldAtlasofLanguageStructures
X(P)anycategory/maximalprojection
Introduction Thisbookisanextendedreflectiononthenatureofmorphosyntacticvariation innaturallanguage.Probablyoneoftheeasiestthingstoobserveaboutlanguage isitsvariability:languagesanddialectsvaryovertimeandacrossspace.This variationisreadilyapparenteventothemostcasualobserver.Moreover,all aspectsofthestructureoflanguageseemtobeopentovariation:phonology, syntax,andmorphology,aswellasthelexicon.Linguisticvariantsareculturally sanctionedaslanguagesintheeverydaysenseoftheterm,andsowespeakofthe Englishlanguage,theFrenchlanguage,andsoon.IntheterminologyofChomsky (b),theseculturalentitiesareformsofE-language,butindividualswe identifyasEnglishspeakers,Frenchspeakers,etc.haveinternalizedvariant I-languages.SovariationisfoundatboththeE-languageandtheI-languagelevel.
Atthesametime,thesearchforlanguageuniversalshasbeenanabiding concernforlinguistsandlinguistictheory.Inrecentdecades,thishastakentwo principalforms.Ontheonehand,the fieldoflanguagetypologyhassoughtto observelanguageuniversalsofonekindoranotherbydirectlycataloguing commonstructuralfeaturesacrossmanylanguages.Thisapproachwasinitiated byGreenberg(/),withasampleofthirtylanguages.Atthetimeof writing(early ), TheWorldAtlasofLanguageStructures (WALS henceforth, availableonlineathttp://wals.info)reportsdatafromatotalof , languages. Strikingly,whileGreenbergcited putativeuniversalsinhisoriginalpaper, manyworkinginthis fieldnowfeelthatthenotionofuniversalmaybechimerical (see,e.g.,Evans&Levinson ;Bickel ; ).Nonetheless,manyuniversalshavebeenproposed:theUniversalsArchiveattheUniversityofKonstanzlists over , (seehttp://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/).
Theotherformofinvestigationoflanguageuniversalsinrecentdecadeshas beendirectlyinspiredbytheworkofNoamChomsky(seeinparticularChomsky ; ; ; b).Chomskyarguesthattheremustbeabiological predispositiontolanguage.Again,theargumentisbasedontwoobservations aboutlanguagewhicharereadilymade: first,thatlanguageisanextremely complexphenomenon,and,second,thatyoungchildrenacquiretheirnative languagewithapparentspeedandease.Together,thesetwoobservationsleadto theconclusionthattheremustbesomeinbuiltcognitivebiaswhichfacilitates languageacquisitionbyconstrainingthehypothesisspacewithinwhichlanguage learningcanoperate.Themostdirect althoughcertainlynottheonly wayto guaranteethisisbyconstrainingtheformofapossiblegrammarofahuman language,i.e.definingtheclassofpossibleI-languages.Thisamountstoconstructingatheoryofpossiblehumangrammars(takentobeasubsetofthesetof
ParameterHierarchiesandUniversalGrammar.Firstedition.IanRoberts. ©IanRoberts .Firstpublished byOxfordUniversityPress.
grammars,andthereforeI-languages).Suchatheoryisuniversalbydefinition; hencetheconstraintsonpossiblegrammars/I-languagesshouldmanifestthemselvesasstructuraluniversalsoflanguage.Thissetofconstraintsisgenerally referredtoasUniversalGrammar(UGhenceforth);UGisthus ‘thegeneraltheory ofI-languages ’ (Berwick&Chomsky : ).Thenotionof ‘inbuiltcognitive bias’ justalludedtoisoftenthoughttobegeneticallydetermined;ifso,thepossible formofgrammarsrepresentsamodernversionofthenotionof ‘innateideas’.Put simply,UGisinnate.
InwhatfollowsIwilladoptaChomskyanperspective,inthatIacceptthe premisethatsomeconstraintonthepossibleformofnatural-languagegrammars isrequiredinordertoaccountforthetwoobservationsjustdescribed.How directlysuchconstraintsneedtobegeneticallycodedis,however,aquestion whichIwillnotdecideinadvance;thisisanoverarchingissuewhichIwillnot directlyaddressinwhatfollows,althoughIwillreturntoitbrieflyinChapter .
AdoptingaChomskyanperspectiveentailsthepostulationofuniversals,aswe haveseen:UGdefinesthegeneralformofapossiblegrammarofahuman language.Inthiscontext,thesimpleobservationofmassivestructuralvariation, atalllevelsandinallobservabletimesandplaces,raisesaproblem.Howcanwe reconcilesucheasilyobserved,culturallysanctionedlinguisticdiversitywiththe factthathumanlinguisticcompetenceappearstobeareadilyacquiredcognitive capacity?Moreover,humanlinguisticcompetenceappearstobe uniquely human, andourspeciesisknowntobegeneticallyratherhomogeneous(see,e.g.,Reed& Tishkoff ).Independentlyofwhetheroneassumessomeformofbiological predispositiontolanguageoftheChomskyankind(butallthemoresoifone does),reconcilingtheattestedlinguisticdiversitywiththecognitiveandgenetic unityofthehumanspeciesisanon-trivialmatter.Atitsmostgeneral,thisisthe questionthisbooktriestoaddress.
Sincetheearly s,mainstreamgenerativegrammarhasdevelopedan approachwhichaddressesthisquestionbypostulatingthatUGallowsforvariation:thisisknownastheprinciplesandparametersapproach, firstarticulatedin detailbyChomsky()(P&Phenceforth).TheprinciplesofUGarticulatethe invariantconstraintsongrammaticalformmotivatedbythetwinobservationsof linguisticcomplexityandapparenteaseoflanguageacquisition.Alliedtothese principles,atleastaswas firstthought,areparametersspecifyingarestrictedrange ofvariation.Hencebothwhatvariesandwhatisinvariantwereseenaspartofthe innatelinguisticendowment.
ItwasalmostimmediatelyrealizedthattheP&Papproachcouldcreatealink betweentheGreenbergianandChomskyanapproachestolinguisticvariationand diversity.TheparametersofUGmayunderlie,directlyorindirectly,thetypologicalvariationanddiversityobservedintheGreenbergiantradition.Thiscentral ideahasledtoagreatdealofproductivecross-linguisticresearch,andiswhat motivatesthepresentwork.IntheremainderofthisIntroduction,Iwantto illustratehowtheGreenbergianandChomskyantraditionshaveinteractedinone particulardomain,thatofcross-linguisticword-ordervariation,showingboththe advantagesanddisadvantagesofstandardP&Pandsketchinganovelgeneral approachofakindwhichconstitutesthecentralideainthisbook.
Amongthe universalsobservedinGreenberg’sclassic / paper, therewereseveralwhichdealtwithwordorder.Ofthese,asshownbyDryer ()inhisreassessmentofGreenberg ’searlyobservationsinthelightof improvedlanguagesampling(intendedamongotherthingstoremovetheIndoEuropeanbiasinGreenberg’ssample)andadatabaseof languages,anumber failtostandupbut,perhapsmoreinterestingly,agoodnumberstilldohold. ConsiderasanillustrationthecorrelationbetweenVOorderandprepositions andOVorderandpostpositions(Greenberg’sUniversals and ;Universal was originallyrestrictedtoVSOlanguages,butthiswaslaterextendedtoSVO languagesbyW.Lehmann ;Vennemann ;andHawkins ).The figuresfromthelatestversionof WALS areasfollows(these figuresexclude inpositionsandcasesof ‘nodominantorder’ intheinterestsofexposition):
()OV&Postpositions
OV&Prepositions
VO&Postpositions
VO&Prepositions (Dryer a; b)
Herethereisatotalof languages,andsothe figuresapproximatecloselyto percentages.Hencemorethan %ofthelanguagessampledshowthecorrelation.IntermsofstandardP&Ptheory,thiscorrelationiscapturedbytheHead Parameter,whichwecanformulateasin(): ()InX0 ,X{precedes/follows}itscomplementYP.
(SeeStowell ;Huang a;Koopman ;Travis forearlyformulationsofthisidea,differingindetailfromthisone;thisformulationisfromRizzi .)Thisparameterexploitsthecategory-neutralnatureoftheX0 -schemain ordertostatethecross-categorialgeneralization,apossibility firstadumbratedby Lightfoot()anddevelopedinHawkins();seeRoberts(a: –). HereweseetheP&Pideainaction:theX0 -theoreticnotionsof ‘head’ , ‘complement’,and ‘X0 ’ aredefinedbyUG,andarefacetsofinvariantprinciplesofphrase structure.Theoptions ‘precede ’ or ‘follow’ representtheparameter,alsostatedat thelevelofUG,andarealsothereforetakentobepartoftheinnateendowment. Butwecanalsoseeaproblem:aminorityoflanguagesappeartodisobeythe correlation.Inthisconnection,thereareseveralpossibilities.Weshould,ofcourse, checkthatthereportedinformationisaccurate.Assumingitis,thenweneedto lookcloselyatthelanguagesinquestionandseewhetheraplausibleanalysis whichwouldbringthemintolinewith()ispossible.Since WALS isbasedon reportedsurfacefacts,itisinprinciplealwayspossiblethatagenerativeanalysis referringtoadeeperlevelofsyntacticanalysis maybeavailable,whichwillsolve theproblem.Itisreasonabletothinkthatthisispossibleinatleastsomecases,but itisalsolikelythatsomeofthese languageswillremainproblematic.Ofcourse, thenon-surface-basedanalysiscanleadtotheoppositesituationtoo.Forexample, German,Dutch,andFrisianarereportedin WALS ascombining ‘nodominant order’ forOV/VOwithprepositions(nodataonAfrikaansisreportedforthese
featuresin WALS,butitwell-knownthatAfrikaansisbroadlyverysimilarto Dutchintheserespects:seeBiberauer ).Germanisstatedtobealanguage ‘in whichwordorderisprimarilydeterminedsyntactically,butinwhichthereare competingOVandVOconstructions’ (Dryer a).Inthegenerativetradition sinceKoster()theselanguageshavebeenanalysedasunderlyinglyOV,with surfaceVOordersderivedbyverb-movementtotheleftoftheobjectinthe relevantcontexts(mainclauseswherethereisnoauxiliary).Sincetheselanguages areprepositional(infacttherearealsosomepostpositions,butIwillleavethis complicationasidehere),thisanalysisaddsuptofourfurtherlanguagesintheOV &Prepositiongroup.
Itisverylikely,then,thatwearefacedwithrealcounterexamplestothe prevailingtendency,evenifsomeofthe problematiclanguagescouldbe showneithertohavebeenmisreportedortobeamenabletoaplausible ‘deeper’ analysiswhichassignsthemtooneoftheothercategories.1 Sinceparameters aretakenas ‘hard’,UG-givenconstraints,wecannotsimplyreplace()witha tendency,orattachsomekindofweightingorpreferencetoit(atleastnotina directway).Theonlyoptionavailable,inthatcase,istomake()lessgeneral,and relativizeittocategories.Letusthenreplace()with():
()a.InV0 ,V{precedes/follows}itscomplement.
b.InP0 ,P{precedes/follows}itscomplement.
Wecannowreadilycapturethedatasummarizedin().The OV,Prepositional languagesset(a)to ‘follow’ and(b)to ‘precede’ (asdoAfrikaans,Dutch, German,andFrisian)andthe VO,Postpositionallanguagesdotheopposite.
Itisclear,though,thatsuchempiricaladequacyhasaheavytheoreticalprice. Wenowhavenowaytocapturetheoverwhelmingtendencytowardsharmonic ordersinparametricterms(ofcourse,wecouldintroducesomeothermeans,or appealtopsycholinguisticfactorsfollowingproposalssuchasthoseinHawkins ; ; ).The figuresin()couldjustaseasilyhavebeentheotherway around,iftheparametersregulatingwordorderarethosein().Moreover,this exercisecanberepeatedforallheadsandcomplements,givingusasmanyhead parametersasthereareheads.Thisisclearlynotagoodsituation.
Itisherethatoneofthecentralideasinwhatfollowscomesintoplay.In essence,inordertocaptureboththefactthatthereareexceptionsto()andthe factthatcross-categorialharmonyisstronglypreferred,weneedtoable both to statetheparameterincategory-neutraltermsasin() and toweakenittospecific
1 Sheehan(c: )drawsattentiontothefactthatthreetimesasmanylanguagescombineVOwith PostpositionsascombineOVwithPrepositions.Asshepointsout,onlythelatterorderviolatestheFinalOver-FinalCondition(FOFC;see()belowandtheextensivediscussioninCh. ).Thisorderisalso confinedtofewermacro-areas,languagefamilies,andgenerathantheinversenon-harmonicorder.Infact, theorderP>DP>VappearstobeconfinedtoIndo-European(non-EnglishWestGermanic,Persian, Tajik,Kurdish,andSorbian)andoneSemiticlanguage,Tigré.Thisgeographicalandgeneticraritydoes notalterthefactthattheorderisbothdisharmonicandnon-FOFC-compliant,ofcourse,butitis consistentwiththenotionthatitconstitutesanexceptiontoprevailingtendencies.
categoriesasnecessary,alongthelinesof().Thiscanbeachievedifweassume (i)thatallparametersarepropertiesofindividualheads(asin()),but(ii)that thereareIndependentFactors(IF)whichcancausegroupsofheads overwhich wecangeneralizewithanappropriatelyformulatedfeaturesystem toactin concert.Wemustfurtherassumethat(iii)thereisapreferencefortheIFstoactin thisway,butthatthispreferenceis ‘soft’,i.e.defeasible.Ifwemakethese assumptions,andifwecanunderstandfullytheweightingofthepreference, thenwecancapturethedatain()andmaintainthat ‘withoverwhelmingly greaterthanchancefrequency’ (inGreenberg ’sappositeformulation)the category-neutralparameterin()holds.
Itisveryimportanttoseethatitfollowsfrom(i–iii)intheprecedingparagraph that()cannotbeaparameterofUGintheclassicalsense.Instead,itisan epiphenomenon:theresultoftheinteractionofamuchmorefragmentedsetof parameterseachrelatingtoindividualheads,theIFs,andthepreferenceforIFsto causeheadstoactinconcertalludedtoabove.Spellingouthowtheseproperties interactindetailacrossarangeofcross-linguisticallyvariantphenomenaisoneof thecentralgoalsofthisbook.
Letusnowbemoreprecise,andbeginto fleshoutthebasicideasjustsetout. Oneofthethingswemustarticulateiswhatthefeaturesystemwhichunderlies parametricvariationis.FollowingChomsky(: ),weproposethenotionof the ‘fragmentedsetofparameters’ justalludedtoastheformalfeaturesof functionalheads.Forconcreteness,letusassumethatthereisaprivativefeature determininghead–complementlinearization callit[F](whichperhapsstands forFollow).Hence,ifaheadHhas[F],itfollowsitscomplement;otherwise Hprecedesitscomplement.
WhataretheIFsthatcauseclassesofH[F]stoacttogether?Followingearlier workbyRoberts&Roussou(: )andRoberts(a: ),Iproposethese areasfollows:
(
)(i)FeatureEconomy(FE): Postulateasfewformalfeaturesaspossible.
(ii)InputGeneralization(IG): Maximizeavailablefeatures.
Together,FEandIGformasearch/optimizationalgorithm,withFEminimizing featureswherepossibleandIGmaximizingdetectedfeatures;Biberauer(; a; )unifiesFEandIGasasingleconstraint,MaximizeMinimalMeans (MMM).ParametricvariationarisesfromthefactthatUGleavestheinventoryof formalfeaturesunderspecifiedforindividualI-languages.
Inthecaseofourexample,harmonichead-initialorderrepresentsadefault option,sinceFisnotpresent,inlinewithFeatureEconomy.InputGeneralization,inthecaseofhead-initiallanguages,isalsovacuouslysatisfi edbecauseFis entirelyabsentfromthesystem.SointhiscasebothFEandIGarecompatible withthehead-initialgrammarbecausenofeatureispositedandtheabsenceof thefeatureismaximallygeneral.However,ifthePrimaryLinguisticData(PLD) thechildisexposedtoisnotcompatiblewiththefullyhead-initialgrammar
