Generative Historical Syntax and the Linguistic Cycle

Elly van Gelderenellyvangelderen@asu.edu

29 March 2013Harvard Linguistic Circle

OutlineA. What is Generative Historical

Linguistics?B. The healthy tension between generative

grammar and historical linguistics, in both directions and how the current Minimalist Program is conducive to looking at gradual, unidirectional change.

C. Examples of Linguistic Cycles and how they can be explained and some challenges.

Model of language acquisition(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

Reanalysis is crucial:

As for the tension: Introspection vs text

Generative syntax has typically relied on introspective data.

For historical periods, such a method of data gathering is obviously impossible.

Generative grammar places much emphasis on the distinction between competence and performance, i.e. on I(nternal)- and E(xternal)-language.

Use (of texts and) corporaFinding a pattern in a (spoken) corpus shows that

there is something systematic going on: repeatedly finding shouldof and shoulda indicates that something interesting is happening with modals and perfect auxiliaries:

(1) I should of knew this was too good to be true.

(2) There xuld not a be do so mykele.`There shouldn’t have been done so much.’

(Margaret Paston a1469)

That-trace

(1) Ac hwaet saegst ðu ðonne ðaet hwaet sie forcuðre ðonne sio ungesceadwisnes?But what say you then that -- bewickeder than be foolishness`But what do you say is wickeder than foolishness?' (Boethius 36.8, from Allen 1977: 122)

Parsed CorporaSince the 1990s, a group of generative linguists

has worked on the creation of parsed corpora (see http://www.ling.upenn.edu/histcorpora/).

Result: much better descriptions of changes in the word order (e.g. work by Pintzuk, Haeberli, Taylor, van Kemenade and others), changes in do-support (e.g. Kroch and Ecay), Adverb Placement (Haeberli, van Kemenade, and Los), and pro drop (Walkden).

Corpus work has reinvigorated Historical Linguistics.

Other historical (parsed) corpora have appeared or are appearing and spurring much work among generative and non-generative linguists:

the Tycho Brahe parsed corpus of historical Portuguese, o corpus do Português,

the Corpus del Español, the Regensburg Russian Diachronic Corpus, a Hungarian corpus is under construction,and COHA with a very helpful interface!

Some other issues of discussion

Change is unidirectional or notand gradual or not

Current theory-internal questionsThe role of UG:

Language-specific or third factorThe role of features

The role of grammaticalization and unidirectionality.

Is grammaticalization epiphenomenal or real?Newmeyer (1998: 237); Roberts & Roussou (2003:

2) and others: “grammaticalization is a regular case of parameter change … [and] epiphenomenal” all components also occur independently.

Others, e.g. van Gelderen (2004; 2011), argue that the unidirectional patterns that are shown by grammaticalization can be `explained’: the child reanalyzes the input in a certain way. This is where cycles come in!

Is change gradual or abrupt?Most functionalist explanations assume it is

gradual whereas many formal accounts think it is abrupt.

Early generative approaches emphasize a catastrophic reanalysis of both the underlying representation and the rules applying to them. Lightfoot, for instance, argues that the category change of modals is an abrupt one from V to AUX, as is the change from impersonal to personal verbs (the verb lician changing in meaning from `please’ to `like’).

How to see the role of UG?In the 1960s, UG consists of substantive

universals, concerning universal categories (V, N, etc) and phonological features, and formal universals relating to the nature of rules. The internalized system is very language-specific.

“[S]emantic features ..., are presumably drawn from a universal ‘alphabet’” (Chomsky 1965: 142), “little is known about this today”.

1990s-2013Parameters now consist of choices of

feature specifications as the child acquires a lexicon (Chomsky 2004; 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."

ShiftWith the shift to parametric parameters, it

becomes possible to think of gradual change through reanalysis as well (e.g. Roberts 2009 and van Gelderen 2009).

Word order change in terms if features e.g. Breitbarth 2012, Biberauer & Roberts.

The set of features that are available to the learner is determined by UG.

Features and word order

Biberauer & Roberts (2008) in examining the shift from OV to VO crucially rely on a EPP-feature. If T bears an EPP feature, a D head will adjoin to T or a DP will move to the specifier of the TP in Modern English. Languages can also have a VP or vP satisfy the EPP feature rather than just the DP contained in the VP or vP.

Features and grammaticalization

Another minimalist approach using features, not concerned with word order, can be found in van Gelderen (2004; 2010) who argues that grammaticalization can be understood as a change from semantic to formal features.

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

A second shiftFaculty of Language is determined by:“(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)

Third factorsWe need more on third factors: not well defined

and invoked to account for a number of phenomena, e.g. pro-drop (Sigurðsson 2011), phrase structure (Medeiros 2012), and language change (van Gelderen 2011).

Constraints on word learning, such as the shape over color bias (Landau et al 1992), would also be third factor. Like UG before it, third factor reasons would remain stable and not responsible in language change.

Cycles tell us which features matterSubject and Object Agreementdemonstrative/emphatic > pronoun > agreement > zeroCopula Cyclea demonstrative > copula > zerob verb > aspect > copulaCase or Definiteness or DPdemonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zeroNegativea negative argument > negative adverb > negative particle

> zerob verb > aspect > negative > C Future and Aspect AuxiliaryA/P > M > T > C

Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer’s 3 types1. “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 microcyclesIn 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.

ctdDiesen 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)

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 this erosion and the destruction of the language. The affixes grind themselves down, disappear without a trace; their functions or similar ones, however, require new expression. 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.

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.

Von der G’s examples of clarityspecial 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 replacing case with prepositions (p. 183).

Grammaticalization = one stepHopper & Traugott 2003: content item > grammatical word

> clitic > inflectional affix. The loss in phonological content is not a necessary

consequence of the loss of semantic content (see Kiparsky 2011; Kiparsky & Condoravdi 2006; Hoeksema 2009).

Kiparsky (2011: 19): “in the development of case, bleaching is not necessarily tied to morphological downgrading from postposition to clitic to suffix.”

Instead, 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, according to Kiparsky (2011).

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.

Main question

How does the child respond to these fast changes?

Feature-spread through the clausal skeleton is reanalyzed.

Microcycle(1)a. I’m gonna leave for the summer.

b. *I’m gonna to Flagstaff for the summer.Nesselhauf (2012) identifies three features,

intention, prediction, and arrangement, in the change of shall, will, ‘ll, be going to, be to, and the progressive) in the last 250 years: as the sense of intention is lost and 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.

MacrocyclesHodge (1971):Proto-Afroasiatic analytic *SmOld Egyptian synthetic sMLate Egyptian analytic SmCoptic synthetic sMHuang (to appear):Chinese, from moderately synthetic to

analytic to moderately synthetic.

August Wilhem von Schlegel 1818: for the use of analytic and synthetic.

Attachment Type Cycle

Isolating

Inflectional Agglutinative

Morphemes per word?

Four (micro)cycles I will look atNegative Cycles

negative argument > negative adverb > negative particle > zero

negative verb > auxiliary > negative > zeroSubject Agreement Cycle

demonstrative/emphatic > pronoun > agreement > zero

Copula Cyclesdemonstrative/verb/adposition > copula > zero

Demonstrative > article/copula/tense marker

Two Negative CyclesI 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 Koorete

she-NOM disappear-PF-PST`She disappeared' (Binyam 2007: 7).

(4) ‘is-i dana ‘ush-u-wa-nni-koshe-NOM beer drink-PRES-not_exist-3FS-FOC‘She does (will) not drink beer.’ (Binyam 2007: 9).

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

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 dydennot-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 ChineseYao Shun since died`Since Yao and Shun died, ...' (Mengzi, Tengwengong B, from Lin 2002: 5)

(3)yu de wang ren mei kunan, ... Early Mandarinwish PRT died person not-be suffering`If you wish that the deceased one has no suffering, ...' (Dunhuang Bianwen, from Lin 2002: 5-6)

One Negative Cycle, e.g. English, French, Arabic

XPSpec X'na wiht X YP

not > n’t …

And a secondAccording 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 ASPPmei

ASP VP mei

V ...mei

The Subject CycleA. demonstrative > third person pron > clitic

> agreementB. oblique > emphatic > first/second pron >

clitic > agreementnoun >

(1) Shidiné bizaad yíní-sh-ta'I Navajo language 3-1-study‘As for me, I am studying Navajo.’

Brazilian Portuguese(1) Vossa mercê > Vosmecê > (V)ocê > cê

your favor/mercy you you-indefinite

(see Mattoso Câmara 1979; Gonçalves 1987; Dutra 1991, cited in Vitral & Ramos 2006)

(2) cê only in subject position and pre-V

(3) ele(s) > el, esela(s) > éa, éas

(4) es inventa um bocado de coisa / eles inventam …`they invented (S) …’

Some stagesJapanese 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 dekha1S ERG him DAT sawb. 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) Me and Kitty 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) Me, I've tucking had it with the small place.

(BNC H0M 1608)(2) %Him, he ....(3) %Her, she shouldn’t do that (not

attested in the BNC)(4) *As for a dog, it should be happy.

CSE-FAC:uncliticized cliticized total

I 2037 685 (=25%) 2722you 1176 162 (=12.1%) 1338he 128 19 (=12.9%) 147

Loss of V-movement and Code switching

(5) What I'm gonna do?`What am I going to do'

(6) How she's doing?`How is she doing‘

(7) *He ging weg `he went away’ Dutch-English CS

(8) 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 Frenchwhere go-2S

(3) tu vas où Colloquial French2S go where ‘Where are you going?'

Subject Cycle

Full phrase move to Spec TP >Head moves to TReanalysis as to what the head is: pronoun

or agreement.

(Economy: agreement =uninterpretable and then this needs an interpretable feature as well)

Copula cycle, sources

• Verbs• Demonstratives• Prepositions etc

Reanalysis of location, identity, and aspect features

Copulas in EnglishThe flavors 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 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)

Demonstrative to article cycle(1) demonstrative/adverb > definite

article > Case/non-generic > class marker > 0

(2) gife to … þa munecas of þe mynstregive 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)

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)

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 ctdHet 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)

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 Externalse --> the seo --> shethat --> that hi --> theyhim/her --> himself/herself

a.se/that > the[i-loc]/[i-phi][u-T]/[u-ps] (= -Ps)

b.he/hi is replaced by heheo/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 Dem C copula[u-phi] [i-phi] [u/i-T] [u-phi]

[i-loc] [i-loc]Also: degree adverb and tense marker (Tibeto-

Burman)Feature Economy:Utilize semantic features: use them as for

functional categories, i.e. as formal features.

Types of minimalist featuresThe semantic features of lexical items (which have

to be cognitively based not UG)

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.

The importance of featuresChomsky (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.

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

airplane buildInterpr. [nominal] [verbal]

[3 person] [assign [non-human]

accusative]Uninterpr [Case] [phi]

Simplifying checking

He reads booksbefore

checking [i-3S] [u-phi] [i-3P]after

checking [i-3S] [u-phi] [i-3P]

That’s why `me sees him’ is ok!

Major IssuesWhere do features ‘come from’?Cartography vs Bare Phrase Structure(1) Tpast Tfut Moodir Modnec

Modpos ASPhab ASPrep ASPfreqoncethen perhaps necessarily possibly usually again often(from Cinque 1999: 107)

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 acquired

shapes grammatical numbernegatives negation

`if’real-unreal irrealis+/-individuated mass-countduration 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 negativeOE no/ne > ME (ne) not > -n’t

> ModE –n’t ... nothing, never, etc

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 negationa 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 copulaAssume copulas have:be remain seem[i-loc] [i-loc] [i-loc]

[i-ASP] [i-M] Source for [loc]? Verbs and demonstratives

D > copula > zero[i-loc] > [i-loc] > --[i-phi] > [u-phi][u-T]

Demonstrative > article

a. DP > b. DPthat D' D'[i-ps] D NP D NP[i-loc][u-#] N … the N

[i-phi] [u-phi] [i-phi]

Hence (1) *I saw the(2) I saw that/those.

Demonstrative [i-phi] [i-loc]

 article pronoun C copula[u-phi] [i-phi] [u/i-T] [i-loc]

[u-T]

Explanations of the Cycle

Recent shift towards third factors and parametric features: we need to be careful how many mechanisms we allow.

Therefore, Feature Economy makes sense

All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F

Why?– Maximize syntax?– Keep merge going?– Lighter?

Summary

Review of GG and HLIntrospection vs corpora/textsGradual, unidirectional changeRole of UG determines what changes:

PS rules > parameters > featuresChallenges

Some References

• Allen, Cynthia 1977. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. UMASS Diss.

• Andersen, henning 1973. in Language.• L’Arrivée, Pierre 2010. The pragmatic motics of

the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French. Lingua 120 (9): 2240-2258.

• Baker, Mark 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.

• Baker, Mark 2008. The syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts 2012. The Significance of What Hasn’t Happened. DIGS 14, Lisbon, 4 July.

• Bopp, Franz 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt-am-Main.

• Breitbarth, Anne 2012. The Development of Conditional Modal Verbs. DIGS 14, Lisbon, July.

• Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

• Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.• Chomsky, Noam 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland et al.

(eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.• Closs, Elizabeth 1965. Diachronic Syntax and Generative grammar.

Language 41.3: 402-415. • Closs Traugott, Elizabeth 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston. • Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de 1746. Essai sur lórigine des connaissances

humaines. Paris.• Crowley, Terry. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Auckland:

Oxford University Press.• Dahl, Osten 2001. Inflationary Effects in Language and Elsewhere. In Joan

Bybee and Paul Hopper, eds. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 471-480. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

• Franzén, Torsten 1939. Etude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri.

• Gabelentz, Georg von der 1891[1901]. Die Sprachwissenshaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig : Weigel. [reprint Tübingen: Narr 1972].

. Gardiner, Alan H. 1904. The word ... Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41: 130-135.

• Gelderen, Elly van 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Gelderen, Elly van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Gelderen, Elly van 2008. Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as Feature Economy. Studia Linguistica: 287-300.

• Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Givón, Talmy 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394-415.

• Givón, Talmy 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 151-188. New York: Academic Press.

• Greenberg, Joseph 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language 3, 47-82. Stanford University Press.

• Harris, Martin 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax. London: Longman.• Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991.

Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Hengeveld, Kees 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.• Hodge, Carleton 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Linguistic Sciences: 13: 1-7.• Hoeksema, Jack 2009. Jespersen Recycled. In Elly van Gelderen Cyclical

Change, 15-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Hopper, Mike & Elizabeth Traugott 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.• Huang, James to appear. On Syntactic Analyticity and Parametric Theory.

In Handbook of Chinese Languages. Wiley-Blackwell.• Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen

Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts.

• Ingham, Richard & Pierre L’Arrivée (eds.). to appear. The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

• Jack, George 1978. Negative adverbs in early Middle English. English Studies 59: 295-309.• Jespersen, Otto 1917 [1966]. Negation in English and other Languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.

[second edition]• Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.• Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive Link between Pronoun and Copula.

Rice Dissertation. • Kiparsky, Paul 1965. Phonological Change. MIT PhD.• Kiparsky, Paul 1996. Indo-European Origins of Germanic Syntax. In Ian Roberts and Adrian Battye

(eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 140-167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Kiparsky, Paul 2011. Grammaticalization as Optimization. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and

Andrew Garrett, Grammatical Change Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 15-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Kiparsky, Paul & Cleo Condoravdi (2006). Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle. In Mark Janse, Brian Joseph & A. Ralli (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 172-197. Mytilene: Doukas.

• Kemenade, Ans van 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.

• Kemenade, Ans van & Nigel Vincent (eds) 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. CUP.• King, Robert 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Prentice Hall.• Klima, Edward 1965. Studies in Diachronic Transformational Syntax. Harvard PhD.• Kroch, Anthony & Anne Taylor 1996. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation

and language contact. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 297-325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Labov, William 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.• Lakoff, Robin 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. MIT Press. • Lambrecht, Knud 1981. Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non Standard French.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Landau, Barbara 1994. Where’s what and what’s where: the language of objects in space. Lingua

92: 259-296.• Lightfoot, David 1974. The diachronic analysis of English modals. Historical Linguistics ed. by J. M.

Anderson & C. Jones, 219-49. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing. • Lightfoot, David 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• 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.

• Los, Bettelou 2012 The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli et al. (eds), Informationa Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, 21-46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• McWhorter, John 1997. Towards a new model of creole genesis. New York: Peter Lang.

• Medeiros, David 2012. Economy of Command. University of Arizona PhD.• Meillet, Antoine. (1921 [1912]) "L'évolution des formes grammaticales". In:

Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (ed. Édouard Champion). Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 130-148. [reprint 1958]

• Nesselhauf, Nadja 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: the recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2.1: 83-132.

• Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Roberts, Ian 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. • Roberts, Ian 2009. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy, and semantic

bleaching. In Graeme Trousdale & Elizabeth Traugott (eds), Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization, 45-73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.

• Robins, R.H. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.• Schlegel, August Wilhem von 1818. Observations sur la langue et la literature

provençales. Paris.• Schwegler, Armin 1990. Analyticity and Syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.• Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2011. Conditions on Argument Drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42.2:

267-304.• Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Tauli, Valter 1958. The Structural Tendencies of Languages. Helsinki.• Tauli, Valter 1966. Structural Tendencies in Uralic Languages. Den Haag: Mouton.• Tooke, John Horne 1786-1805. The Diversion of Purley. London. . • Traugott, Elizabeth & Bernd Heine 1991. Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.• Trudgill, Peter & Jenny Cheshire 1998. The sociolinguistics reader volume 1. London:

Arnold.• van der Auwera, Johan 2009. The Jespersen Cycles. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.)

Cyclical Change, 35-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Vance, Barbara 1997. Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.• Vitral, Lorenso & Jânia Ramos 2006. Gramaticalização: uma abordagem formal. Rio

de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.• Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs. Travaux de Linguistique et

Litterature: 131-147.