Generative Grammar, Minimalism, and Language Change

Elly van GelderenASU CS Seminar

16 February 2015

OutlineBrief history of Generative Grammar

structure/hierarchy over linear ordernon-imitative

Introduction to the Minimalist Program (MP)attribute as little as possible to UG

How language change informs the MP:unidirectional change tells one how the language learner builds her/his grammar

Generative Grammar of the 1950sNoam Chomsky and the generative model he develops offer an alternative, starting in the late 1950s, to descriptive linguistics and behaviorism and bring about a revolution in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science.

Chomsky continues to stress descriptive adequacy and explanatory adequacy to emphasize how the language faculty is represented in and acquired by humans. BEA: why is the FoL the way it is?

Poverty of the StimulusThe focus is on the mind of the language learner/user (the competence) and ceases to be on the structures present in the language produced (the performance). The input to language learning is seen as poor, a phenomenon known as the ‘poverty of the stimulus'. The basis for this phenomenon is that speakers know so much more than what they have evidence for from the input.

Chomsky (1975: 36).

The innate language faculty, when "stimulated by appropriate and continuing experience, … creates a grammar that creates sentences with formal and semantic properties”.

Model of language acquisition/change(based on Andersen 1973)

Generation n Generation n+1UG UG+ +experience experience n

= =I-language n I-language n+1

E-language n E-language n+1+ innovations

Internal Grammar

Structure over linear orderReflexives(1) He voted for himself(2) *They wanted him to vote for themselves.Who is `himself’ in:(3) The uncle of Obama voted for himself.Subject-Aux Inversion(4) Elephants that can swim are happy.(5) Are elephants that can swim happy? (6) * Can elephants that swim are happy?

Locality of movement

(1) Who did she think she was dealing with?

(COCA 2007)

(2) *Who did she ask when John met?

(3) I heard (the report) that she met him.> (4) Who did I hear that she met?> (5) *Who did I hear the report that she met?

Reanalysis is crucial

(1) Paul said, "Starting would be a good thing to do. How would you like to begin?“ (COCA 2010 Fiction) (cartoon is on Handout)

Phrase Structure and Transformations

(1) a. Sentence NP + VP b. VP Verb + NP (Chomsky 1957 : 27)

(2) If S1 is a grammatical sentence of the formNP1 - Aux - V - NP2,

then the corresponding string of the formNP2 - Aux + be + en - V by + NP1

is also a grammatical sentence. (Chomsky 1957: 43)

X’, Principles and Parameters improve this system:

(1) CPC’

C TPT’

T VPV’

V ...(2) Headedness, pro-drop, etc

Chomsky (2014: Interview 4 March)

Between early and late GG: “There are two crucial things that remain the same. One is recognition that the core property of language is an unbounded system for generating hierarchic structures with dual interpretations and the other is that it should be constructed within a biological framework”.

Emphasis on MERGE (=UG) and features (parametrized)

Minimalist Program: reduce UGThree Factors“(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)

EconomyLocality = Minimize computational burden (Ross

1967; Chomsky 1973)Use a head = Minimize Structure (Head

Preference Principle, van Gelderen 2004)Late Merge = Minimize computational burden

(van Gelderen 2004, and others)The latter two can be seen in terms of Feature

Economy

Borer-Chomsky-Conjecture

Parameters now consist of choices of feature specifications as the child acquires a lexicon (Chomsky 2007).

Baker, while disagreeing with this view of parameters, calls this the Borer-Chomsky-Conjecture (2008: 156): "All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon."

Types of minimalist featuresThe 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 (=phi-features) are interpretable on nouns but not on verbs.

Formal features are interpretable and uninterpretable (Chomsky 1995: 277):

airplane buildInterpr.[nominal] [verbal]

[3 person] [assign [non-human] accusative]

Uninterpr [Case] [phi]

Merge and AGREE(1) TP

T’

T VP[u-phi][i-pr] DP V’

many buffaloes V PP[i-3] [i-P] live

in this room

Current Generative Model

Lexicon

N(arrow) S(yntax)

Interfaces PHON SEMExternal

systems:SensorimotorConceptual-Intentional

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).

Radford (2000): in acquisition from + > -

If semantic features are innate, we need:

Feature Economy(a) Utilize semantic features: use them as

for functional categories, i.e. as formal features (van Gelderen 2008; 2011).

(b) If a specific feature appears more than once, one of these is interpretable and the others are uninterpretable (Muysken 2008).

Features and grammaticalizationGrammaticalization is a change from semantic to

formal features with (optional) loss of phonetic features.

For instance, a verb with semantic features, such as Old English will with [volition, expectation, future], can be reanalyzed as ‘ll having only the grammatical feature [future].

Cycles tell us which features matterSubject and Object Agreement (Givón)demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zeronoun > first and second person > agreement > zeronoun > noun marker > agreement > zero

Copula Cycle (Katz)demonstrative > copula > zerothird person > copula > zeroverb > copula > aspect

Noun Cycle (Greenberg)demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zeronoun > number/gender > zero

And about processing/economyNegative Cycle (Gardiner/Jespersen

see van der Auwera)a negative argument > negative adverb > negative

particle > zerob verb > aspect > negative > C(negative polarity cycle: Willis)

CP CycleAdjunct AP/PP > ... > C

Future and Aspect Auxiliary A/P > M > T (> C)V > ASP

Negative Cycle in Old English450-1150 CE

a. no/ne early Old English

b. ne (na wiht/not) after 900, esp S

c. (ne) not after 1350

d. not > -not/-n’t after 1400

Neg Cycle in terms of structure NegP

Neg’

Neg VPne

V DP/APno thing

and in terms of features

DP in the VP > Specifier of NegPsemantic > [i-neg]

> Head Neg > negative affix> [u-neg]

and then renewal is needed from another lexical element

The Subject CycleA. demonstrative > third person pronoun > clitic

> agreement

B. noun/oblique pronoun > first/second pron > clitic > agreement

"agreement and pronominalization ... Are fundamentally one and the same phenomenon“ (Givón 1978: 151).

Just a few examplesThe Basque verbal prefixes n-, g-, z- are identical to the pronouns

ni ‘I’, gu ‘we’, and zu ‘you.’ (Gavel & Henri-Lacombe 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 various cycles in terms of featuresThe cycle of agreementnoun > emphatic > pronoun > agreement > 0[sem] [i-phi] [i-phi]/[u-phi] [u-phi]

The cycles of negationAdjunct/Argument Specifier Head (of NegP) affix

semantic > [i-NEG]> [u-NEG] > --

Modal CycleVerb > AUX[volition, expectation, future] [future]

Acquisition, Sign Language, ...Unidirectional change in sign language

e.g. Aronoff et al; Fisher & Gough; Pfau & Steinbach: V>ASP, N > AGR,

and L1 Acquisitione.g. Brown (1973); Josefsson & Håkansson (2000)

Interlanguage: debate as to featuresLardiere (2007), Hawkins (2005), Tsimpli et al (2004)

Pre-human features: place, duration, negation ...

New developments

Eliminate the features that trigger movement and `blame’ movement on the resolution of a labeling conflict:{XP, YP} : one of the 2 must move....

Wrap-up

Brief overview of current generative linguisticsDifferences between early – current program:Simpler but still focus on hierarchical structures and movement through MERGE.My interest: Gradual, unidirectional change provides a window on the language facultyCurrent Developments

Some referencesChomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Chomsky, Noam 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.Chomsky, Noam 2014a. Problems of Projection: Extensions. ms.Chomsky, Noam 2014b. Transcript of interview by Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi (March 4, 2014)Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gelderen, Elly van 2013. Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ott, Dennis & Radek Šimík 2015. Alternatives to formal features. DGfS Workshop description.