Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780199659203, 0199659206

Citation preview

Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS

Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge ADVISORY EDITORS

Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of Trieste; David Willis, University of Cambridge PUBLISHED

1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith in preparation The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Vol. I: Case Studies; Vol. II: Patterns and Processes Edited by Anne Breitbarth, Chris Lucas, and David Willis Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Vowel Quantity from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg

Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by CHARLOTTE GALVES, SONIA CYRINO, RUTH LOPES, FILOMENA SANDALO, AND JUANITO AVELAR

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © editorial matter & organization editors; chapters their several authors 2012 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2012 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 978–0–19–965920–3 Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King’s Lynn

Contents List of figures and tables Notes on contributors Abbreviations 1 Parameter theory and dynamics of change Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

vii ix xiii 1

2 Parameters in Old Romance word order: A comparative minimalist analysis Guido Mensching

21

3 Microparameters in the verbal complex: Middle High German and some modern varieties Christopher D. Sapp

43

4 Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish Joel C. Wallenberg

60

5 Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in the history of Portuguese Adriana Cardoso

77

6 Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese: A diachronic perspective Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

97

7 Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish: Similar changes in Romania Nova Mary Aizawa Kato

117

8 Macroparametric change and the synthetic–analytic dimension: The case of Ancient Egyptian Chris H. Reintges

133

9 A diachronic shift in the expression of person Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

158

10 The formal syntax of alignment change John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

177

11 The diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle Elliott Lash

196

vi

Contents

12 Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation Ana Maria Martins 13 Negative changes: three factors and the diachrony of Afrikaans negation Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra 14 Romanian ‘can’: Change in parametric settings Virginia Hill

214

238

265

15 Prepositional genitives in Romance and the issue of parallel development: From Latin to Old French Chiara Gianollo

281

16 Convergence in parametric phylogenies: Homoplasy or principled explanation? Giuseppe Longobardi

304

17 Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research Ian Roberts

320

References Name index Subject index

336 371 377

List of figures and tables Figure 3.1 Rate of 2-1 and 1-2 orders over time

52

Figure 4.1 Tense-final and tense-medial chart 1 Figure 4.2 Tense-final and tense-medial chart 2

70 74

Figure 4.3 Tense-final and tense-medial chart 3

75

Figure 7.1 Loss of VS and increase of pre-verbal pronominal subjects Figure 7.2 Percentage of non-inversion by subject type

121 123

Figure 15.1 The disappearance of the inflected genitive Figure 16.1 Phylogenetic tree from Longobardi and Guardiano (2009)

292 307

Table 3.1 Syntagm

46

Table 3.2 Prefix type

47

Table 3.3 Class of preceding word Table 3.4 Stress of preceding word

47 48

Table 3.5 Focus type Table 3.6 Focused constituent

48 49

Table 3.7 Extraposition

50

Table 3.8 Genre Table 3.9 Verbal-complex orders in modern varieties

51 53

Table 3.10 Parameters for the position of verbs in continental West Germanic

58

Table 4.1 Tense-final and tense-medial sample corpora Table 7.1 Full DP subjects in VS and SV structures

69 123

Table 8.1 Main parametric differences between the agglutinative and analytic system

156

Table 9.1 Rate of –s marking for 3rd-person plural subject types (N¼527)

163

Table 9.2 Rate of –s marking with non-adjacent personal pronoun subjects (N¼170)

164

Table 10.1 The active system in nominalized clauses

189

Table 15.1 Distribution of genitives in Late Latin Table 15.2 Distribution of adjectives in Late Latin

287 288

Table 15.3 Co-occurrence of genitives in Classical Latin

288

viii

List of figures and tables

Table 15.4 Old and Middle French texts from the MCVF corpus used in the study Table 15.5 Prepositional versus inflected genitives in the Vie de Saint Alexis Table 15.6 Case declension in Old French

290 291 292

Table 15.7 Distribution of inflected genitives in Old French Table 15.8 Co-occurence of adjectives and genitives

293 298

Table 16.1 Parameter values (adapted from Longobardi and Guardiano 2009)

316

Table 16.2 Distance matrix (from Longobardi and Guardiano 2009)

318

Notes on contributors Juanito Avelar studied in Rio de Janeiro and Campinas and is currently Associate Professor at the University of Campinas. He has published on syntactic variation and on the history of Brazilian Portuguese. His publications include Ter, ser e estar: dinâmicas morfossintáticas no português brasileiro (RG Editora, 2009) and, co-edited with Fernão de Oliveira, Um gramático na história (Pontes, 2009). Judy B. Bernstein is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the William Paterson University of New Jersey. Her interest in cross-linguistic phenomena at the morphology-syntax interface led to extensive research on the syntax of the noun phrase. In recent years she has also become involved in research on Appalachian English, a stigmatized variety of American English. This work sparked interest in the ancestor variety of Appalachian English, Older Scots, as well as the ancestor varieties of standard English. Theresa Biberauer is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at the University of Cambridge, and Senior Lecturer Extraordinary in the General Linguistics Department at Stellenbosch University (South Africa). Her research focuses on comparative syntax, notably word-order variation, subject-related phenomena, negation, and doubling phenomena. She is the editor of The Limits of Syntactic Variation (Benjamins, 2008) and, with Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, a co-author of Parametric Variation (CUP, 2010). Adriana Cardoso is a researcher at the Linguistics Center of the University of Lisbon (CLUL) and lectures at Higher Education College of Lisbon (ESELx). Her PhD dissertation is in Historical Linguistics (Variation and Change in the Syntax of Relative Clauses: New Evidence from Portuguese). Her main research interests are comparative syntax, historical linguistics, and native language teaching. Sonia Cyrino studied at the University of Campinas where she is currently Associate Professor. She has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Maryland at College Park and at the University of Cambridge (UK). She is interested in syntactic theory and diachronic change in Brazilian Portuguese. Her publications include chapters in the iGoing Romancer series (John Benjamins) and articles in international journals such as Journal of Portuguese Linguistics and Iberia-International Journal on Theoretical Linguistics Charlotte Galves studied in Paris (Paris IV- Sorbonne and Paris VIII-Vincennes) and is currently Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Campinas. She has published on the comparative syntax of European and Brazilian Portuguese

x

Notes on contributors

from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. She coordinates the elaboration of the Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese. Her publications include Ensaios sobre as gramáticas do português and, as co-editor, África-Brasil: Caminhos da Lingua Portuguesa (Editora da Unicamp, 2001 and 2009). Chiara Gianollo is a researcher and lecturer (Akademische Rätin auf Zeit) in Linguistics at the University of Cologne, and an associated fellow of the Zukunftskolleg, University of Konstanz. She received her doctoral degree in Linguistics from the University of Pisa in 2005. Her research interests are centred on modeling linguistic variation and the dynamics of language change. She is currently developing a research project on the comparative syntax of adnominal arguments in ancient Indo-European languages. Virginia Hill is Professor of Linguistics at the University of New Brunswick – Saint John. She specializes in the diachronic syntax of Early Modern Romanian and on the pragmatics-syntax interface. Mary Aizawa Kato is a Full Professor at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil, where she still works as a voluntary collaborator after having retired. Her main areas of research and teaching are: comparative syntax, historical linguistics, and language acquisition. She is presently coordinating, with Francisco Ordoñez (SUNY, Stonybrook), the project Romania Nova, sponsored by CNPq (grant 301219/ 2008-7), which is concerned with comparative studies of the Romance languages spoken in the Americas. Elliott Lash has recently completed a PhD at the University of Cambridge and he is currently a researcher at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, where he is building a POS tagged and parsed corpus of Irish texts. He is interested in the history of Irish syntax, especially copula clauses, verbal nouns, secondary predication, and word order. More broadly, he is interested in syntactic reconstruction (especially of Indo-European languages), the use of features/feature structures in Minimalism, and linearization algorithms. Giuseppe Longobardi is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Trieste, and on the Neurosciences program staff at SISSA, Trieste. He was a visiting professor at Vienna, USC, Harvard, UCLA, and was Directeur de Recherche Etranger at the CNRS in Paris (2003). He has written on theoretical and historical syntax in international journals (Linguistic Inquiry, Lingua, Zeitschrift f. Sprachwissenschaft, Natural Language Semantics, Linguistic Variation Yearbook), and authored, edited, or contributed to volumes published by major scientific publishers. Ruth Lopes joined the University of Campinas in 2006 where she is an Associate Professor. She has been a visiting researcher at the University of Maryland at College Park and at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her interests are language acquisition and the syntax-semantics interface. She is the co-authorm, with Carlost Mioto and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva of Novo Manual de Sintaxe (Insular, 2004).

Notes on contributors

xi

Ana Maria Martins is Associate Professor at the Universidade de Lisboa. She has published on different topics of Portuguese and Romance syntax, in a comparative perspective: word order, clitics, negative polarity items, emphatic affirmation, impersonal se, (inflected) infinitives, (hyper-)raising, negation. Several of her papers are published in the Linguistic series of Oxford University Press and John Benjamins. She coordinates the project Syntax-oriented Corpus of Portuguese Dialects (CORDIAL-SIN). Guido Mensching is Professor of Romance Linguistics at the Freie Universität Berlin. He has published extensively on Romance lexicology of the Middle Ages, including La sinonima delos nonbres delas medeçinas (Madrid: Arco Libros 1994), on Sardinian, and on the syntax of the Romance languages. For the latter, he works within the generative framework (see his Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages, OUP, 2000). Chris H. Reintges is a senior researcher (Chargé de recherche, 1ère classe) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) at University Paris 7. He received his PhD in linguistics at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, in 1997, with a dissertation on Passive Voice in Older Egyptian: Morphosyntactic Study. Subsequently he worked extensively on focus-sensitive constructions in Coptic Egyptian, including wh-in-situ questions, relative clauses, cleft sentences, and coordinative structures. He published an extensive reference grammar on Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic Dialect): A Learner’s Grammar (Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag). His research interests include parameter theory, historical linguistics and language change, and comparative syntax (with particular emphasis on Afroasiatic languages and Brazilian Portuguese). Ilza Ribeiro is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Bahia. She has written widely on aspects of diachronic syntax, language change, and variation. She has also widely published on particular phenomena of Old Portuguese. She is currently working on a Brazilian Portuguese historical project and on written and spoken African Portuguese in Brazil. Ian Roberts is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Cambridge and Professorial Fellow at Downing College. He has previously held Chairs at the University of Wales, Bangor University, and Stuttgart University. He is the author of five monographs and two textbooks, and has written many articles on diachronic syntax, as well as the syntax of the Germanic, Romance, and Celtic languages. Filomena Sandalo has a PhD from the University of Pittsburg and is currently Associate Professor at the University of Campinas. She was a Post-Doctoral Associate 1996 to 1998 and a visiting scholar in 2001 and 2010–2011 at MIT. She has published on phonology and morphology of Portuguese and the native languages of South America. Her publications include A Grammer of Kadiwéu (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, 1997).

xii

Notes on contributors

Christopher D. Sapp is Assistant Professor of German and Linguistics at the University of Mississippi. Dr. Sapp holds a PhD in Germanic Linguistics from Indiana University (2006). His research specialization is the diachronic morphology and syntax of Germanic languages. Dr. Sapp most frequently teaches German language and linguistics, syntax, and historical linguistics. Maria Aparecida Torres Morais is Associate Professor at the University of São Paulo. She received her PhD in Linguistics at the University of Campinas. She has published on Portuguese historical syntax and on comparative studies between European and Brazilian Portuguese. She is currently involved in a historical project on the Portuguese of São Paulo while still carrying her research on the syntax of Old Portuguese. Joel Wallenberg finished his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania in 2009 and completed a postdoc as a NSF International Research Fellow at the University of Iceland, where he worked to build a diachronic parsed corpus of Old and Modern Icelandic. He is currently Lecturer in the History of English at Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne. John Whitman is professor in the Department of Contrastive Linguistics at the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics in Tokyo, Japan. He was previously chair of the Department of Linguistics at Cornell University. His research focuses on the languages of East Asia, syntactic theory, syntactic change, and language reconstruction. Yuko Yanagida is professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Cultures at the University of Tsukuba. Her research focuses on the synchronic analysis of earlier Japanese syntax, the diachronic syntax of Japanese, focus-related phenomena in Modern Japanese, and the theory of alignment change. Raffaella Zanuttini is Professor of Linguistics at Yale University. Her research focuses on comparative syntax. She has worked extensively on syntactic variation in the expression of sentential negation, and on the notion of clause type. She has recently created the Yale Grammatical Diversity Project aiming to highlight syntactic variation in North American varieties of English. She is the author of Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages (Oxford University Press). Hedde Zeijlstra is assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam since 2006. His research centres around the syntax and semantics of negation and other functional categories. Zeijlstra obtained his PhD in 2004 at the University of Amsterdam. After that he was appointed post-doctoral researcher at the University of Tübingen from 2004–2006, and also held a position as visiting assistant professor position at MIT in 2009. In 2007, his research was awarded a VENI-grant by the Dutch national research foundation.

Abbreviations 3S

3rd singular

3SF

3rd singular feminine

A-movement

Argument movement

A

Adjective

ABL

Ablative

ACC/Acc

Accusative

ACI

Accusativus cum infinitivo

ADN

Adnominal

AGR/Agr

Agreement

AgrOP

Agreement object Phrase

AGT

Agent

AMC

Aislinge Meic Conglinne

AN

Adjective-Noun order

Asp

Aspect

AST-T

Assertion time

Aux

Auxiliary

BAR

Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill

BCC

Borer-Chomsky Conjecture

BP

Brazilian Portuguese

C

Complementizer

CDP

Crônica de D. Pedro

CE

Christian era

CEP

Contemporary European Portuguese

CFC

Core functional category

CIPM

Corpus Informatizado do Português Medieval

CL/Cl/cl

Clitic

CLL

Classical Latin

CLLD

Clitic left dislocation

ClP

Clitic Phrase

CMP

Comparative

CND

Conditional

xiv

Abbreviations

Co

Coordenative head

COMP

Complementizer

CONC

Conclusive

cond.

Conditional

CoP

Coordination Phrase

COP

Copula

CP

Complementizer Phrase

CPVC

Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha

CS

Caribbean Spanish

D

Determiner

DAT/Dat

Dative

DEC

Declarative

DIL

Contributions to a Dictionary of the Irish Language

DN

Double Negation

DO

Direct object

DP

Determiner Phrase

DSG

Diálogos de São Gregório

EA

External argument

EMJ

Early Middle Japanese

EMR

Early Modern Romanian

ENHG

Early New High German

EP

European Portuguese

EPP

Extended Projection Principle

ERG

Ergative

EV-T

Event time

EXCLAM

Exclamatory

FEM/f.

Feminine

FinP

Finiteness Phrase

FLOS

Flos Sanctorum

FOC/Foc

Focus

FocP

Focus Phrase

FOFC

Final over Final Constraint

ForceP

Force Phrase

FR

Foro Real

FT

Future

Abbreviations FUT

Future tense

G

Genitive

GB

Government-Binding theory

GEN

Genitive

GER

Gerund

GN

Genitive-Noun order

GRAAL

A Demanda do Santo Graal

GroundP

Ground Phrase

HAF

Head attraction feature

HON

Honorific

HT

Hanging topic

IA

Internal argument

IMP

Imperative

IMPERF

Imperfect tense

ind

Indicative

INF/Inf

Infinitive

INFL

Inflection

inv

Invariable

IP

Inflectional Phrase

KP

Kase Phrase

Lambeth Comm

Old Irish Lambeth Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

LD

Left dislocation

LF

Logical Form

LL

Late Latin

LMJ

Late Middle Japanese

LOC

Locative

LU

Lebor na hUidre

MF

Middle French

MHG

Middle High German

Ml

Old Irish Milan Glosses on the Psalms

MN

Metalinguistic negation

mrk

Marker

MR

Modern Romanian

xv

xvi

Abbreviations

MS

Modern Spanish

MSG

Modern Standard German

N

Noun

NA

Noun-Adjective order

NAS

Nasalization

NC

Negative Concord

NEG/Neg

Negation

NEU

Neuter

NG

Noun-Genitive order

NI

Negative indefinite

NM

Negative marker

NOM

Nominative

NOMINL

Nominalized

NP

Noun Phrase

NPI

Negative polarity items

NullS

Null subject

NS

Narrow syntax

O/Obj

Object

OBL

Oblique

ODR

Orgain Denna Ríg

OE

Old English

OF

Old French

OGal/P

Old Galician-Portuguese

OI

Old Italian

OJ

Old Japanese

OldP

Old Portuguese

OOc

Old Occitan

OP

Operator

OpP

Operator or Focus Phrase

OS

Old Spanish

OSV

Object-Subject-Verb

P

Preposition, adposition

P&P

Principles and parameters

part./Part.

Participle

PASS

Passive

Abbreviations past

Past tense

PCM

Parametric Comparison method

PERF

Perfective

PF

Phonological Form

PIC

Phase impenetrability condition

pIE

Proto-Indo-European

PL/pl

Plural

PLD

Primary linguistic data

PMQP

Pretérito mais-que-perfeito (past perfect/pluperfect)

PP

Prepositional Phrase

PPI

Positive polarity items

PR

Present

preposition-article

Preposition and article contraction

preposition-demonstrative

Preposition and demonstrative contraction

PRES/pres

Present tense

PRF

Perfective particle

PROG

Progressive

PrtP

Participle Phrase

PSS

Passive

PST

Past

PTCPL

Participle

PV

Preverb

Q

Question

RC

Relative clause

REL

Relative (particle/pronoun)

RRC

Restrictive relative clause

(S)OV

(Subject) Object Verb

(S)VO

(Subject) Verb Object

S

Subject

S

Singular

SACT

Active subject

SBJ

Subjunctive mood

SC

Small clause

SDS

Short distance scrambling

SG/sg

Singular

xvii

xviii

Abbreviations

sINACT

Inactive subject

Spec/spec

Specifier

SUBJ/subj

Subjunctive mood

SubjP

Subject of predication

SUSP

Suspective

T

Tense

TAM

Tense/Aspect/Mood

TEC

Transitive expletive construction

to-V

Uninflected infinitive

TopP

Topic Phrase

TP

Tense Phrase

TYC

Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese

uCase

Uninterpretable Case

UG

Universal Grammar

UT-T

Utterance time

V

Verb

v*P

Transitive verb Phrase

V2

Verb second

VC

Verbal complex

vP

v Phrase

VP

Verb Phrase

VPR

Verb projection raising

VR

Verb raising

WALS

World Atlas of Language Structures

Wb.

Old Irish Würzburg Glosses on the Pauline Epistles

Wh

Interrogative Phrase

will-V

Future

would-V

Conditional

SP

Sigma Phrase

1 Parameter theory and dynamics of change1 CHARLOTTE GALVES, SONIA CYRINO, AND RUTH LOPES

1.1 Introduction The chapters presented in this volume raise most of the relevant current issues in the field of historical syntax. That is achieved through a thorough examination of a wide range of (un)related languages: Romance and Germanic ones—including their recent and ‘restructured’ daughters like Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish for Romance, and Afrikaans for Germanic—Latin, Irish, Indo-Iranian languages, Japanese, Coptic, and Old Egyptian. The historical periods covered by some of the chapters go back as far as 3000 bc, and some take a fresh methodological grasp by looking into modern dialects and colloquial speech. Before presenting each chapter, we will briefly address two main issues which are the backbones of the volume: the theory of parameters and the dynamics of language change. The advances proposed here, as well as the implications such issues bear, go beyond historical syntax, shedding light onto linguistic theory proper.

1.2 Parameter theory Recently, parameter theory has come back to its original agenda to a great extent, thanks to the search for explanatory adequacy in the field of historical syntax. If a notion such as ‘imperfect learning’ (see Kroch 2001), for instance, is assumed to explain grammatical change, it becomes crucial for historical syntax to understand how parameters are set in language acquisition, and, as a matter of fact, how they were differently set in the previous generations. Obviously, this task cannot be 1 This chapter was partially supported by CNPq grants 305699/2010–5, 303006/2009–9, and 306682/ 2010–9.

2

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

achieved without an explicit and exhaustive theory of parameters, one which is able to shape the parameters in a way which is compatible with the current theories of grammar, as well as to establish the conditions under which they can be set on the basis of the data available to children. The enormous increase in comparative data coming both from very different and very similar languages challenged the widely accepted view of the existence of a limited number of parameters, from which it would be possible to consistently derive the same set of phenomena among languages (see Newmeyer 2004 and Roberts and Holmberg 2010). Besides, with the emergence of the Minimalist Program (henceforth MP), which proposes a different architecture to the Faculty of Language and its computational system, parameters had to be thought over. One of the issues to be raised, for instance, has to do with the exact nature of the relationship between movement and visible morphology, which used to play a prominent role in the explanation of syntactic changes in the eighties. Given the lack of consensus among models and theorists, and given the diversity of approaches regarding parameters, historical syntax may come to play a major role in generative grammar—a lab in which analyses and hypotheses are committed to explain the observed evolution of languages. Two tendencies are to be found in the following pages with regard to the inventory of functional categories, both familiar nowadays. One of them comprises what Guido Mensching (this volume) calls ‘core functional categories,’ which in the spirit of the MP he restricts to v, T, and C. The other one, initially proposed by Rizzi (1997), allows for a much more extended list of categories, taking CP not as a single category but as layers of projections of articulated categories, including Focus and Topic which, in turn, can also constitute independent layers (see Benincà and Poletto 2004). This view is pretty much represented in the chapters that examine left-periphery phenomena. Although these categories are discourse interface ones whose theoretic status can be questioned, they still seem to allow for a more finegrained analysis of the variation and change affecting the pre-verbal field in many languages, specifically in the V2 ones that display a particular behaviour not captured by the classical analyses. Even though Mensching convincingly argues for a more restrictive approach to functional categories, the differences between those languages that are typically V2—such as Modern German—and those in which V2 depends on the discourse properties of the clause—such as Old Romance languages, among others—seem to be better accommodated under an extended CP hypothesis (see Ribeiro and Torres Morais, this volume). Likewise, one of the challenges for parameter theory is to provide analyses for facts that have long been recognized and studied in the linguistic tradition. This is not always an easy task, either because the model of grammar parameter theory is articulated with and does not offer the necessary tools (see for instance the nature of the relationship between abstract and morphological case), or because traditional analyses do not translate straightforwardly into formal models. One case in point is the split between ergative and accusative languages, examined in detail by the

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

3

typological literature. Another well-known traditional issue is the notion of voice. These questions are raised by Whitman and Yanagida (this volume) who associate the ergative/accusative distinction, on one hand, and the passive/active dichotomy, on the other, with the properties of v. Another much debated question has to do with word order. Several word order changes associated to specific parameters are discussed in this volume, apart from the already mentioned V2 phenomena. One of them is the change in relation to the position of V in Germanic languages (see Sapp, this volume, and Wallenberg, this volume). Wallenberg’s chapter is a nice illustration of the way grammatical change can shed light on the nature of the parameter involved. Adopting Yang’s (2000) model, the author shows that the predictions about the directionality of change made by this model favour a Kaynean head movement theory over a purely linear order approach. Sapp’s chapter examines the possible co-existence of contradictory settings of a parameter with respect to V-Aux/Aux-V order in the history of German and its modern dialects. His account is deeply anchored in the notions of micro- and macroparameters—an innovative and productive trend in the discussion of parameters in the last years, albeit the different definitions to be found amongst researchers. We turn to that now.

1.3 Micro- versus macroparameters The notion of microparameters has been a very recurrent one in the recent literature on comparative and historical syntax in the generative framework. The initial discussion about the distinction between macro- and microparameters is to be found in Baker (1996). According to him, up to that point in time parameter theory had failed to deal with variation clusters, and, therefore, to account for what Sapir (1921) had called the ‘structural genius’ of languages: ‘This type or plan or structural genius of the language is something much more fundamental, much more pervasive, than any single feature of it we can mention, nor can we gain an adequate idea of its nature by a mere recital of the sundry facts that make up the grammar of the language.’ (Sapir, 1921: 120, apud Baker 1996: 3). Baker (1996: 8–9) makes a very strong claim, according to which ‘polysynthetic languages differ from other languages in exactly one macro-parameter’. He also claims that, as in other groups of typologically or genetically related languages, ‘polysynthetic languages differ from one another only in micro-parameters, that is in features that can be attributed to idiosyncratic morpho-lexical properties of the kind envisioned by Borer (1984) and Chomsky (1992)’. Consequently, according to him, macro- and microparameters have distinct natures, and only the latter concern the features of functional categories, as proposed in the classic Borer–Chomsky approach. Macroparameters, by contrast, are the parametrization of the way Universal Grammar (UG) principles are satisfied across languages. We will come back to this point later on.

4

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

Kayne (2005b) takes a different approach to this question. First, he emphasizes the fact that the notion of micro- and macrocomparative syntax is not absolute, but relative: ‘Work on a more closely related set of languages or dialects is more microcomparative than work on a less closely related set.’ (Kayne 2005b: 280). According to him, a ‘closely related set’ has to do with historical/genetic relatedness: ‘Thus, work on a set of Italian dialects would be more micro-comparative than work on a set of Indo-European languages including Italian, Greek, and English’ (Kayne 2005b: 280). From this point of view, ‘different settings of micro-parameters would characterize differences between very closely related languages and dialects such as American English and British English’ (Kayne 2005b: 280). This idea, though appealing, encounters problems: European and Brazilian Portuguese, for instance, although very closely related from a historical point of view, have been shown to present differences that can be found when comparing very distant languages (for instance other Romance languages and Chinese). The idea that closely related languages are closer from a syntactic point of view than less closely related languages is therefore subject to empirical verification. Two different cases ought to be considered. One of them has to do with geographically close dialects, as in Northern Italy (see D’Alessandro et al. 2010), which correspond to a situation of dialectal continua that were lost in most of the European countries, for historical reasons. The other one has to do with what Holm (2004) dubs restructuring processes of languages in contact giving rise to new varieties. The extreme effect of such a restructuring process is found in Creole languages. The case of American English, mentioned by Kayne as a case of microparametric variation with respect to British English, is interesting to be compared with Brazilian Portuguese, with respect to European Portuguese. The degree of restructuring of the former seems to be much lower than the degree of restructuring of the latter. This is due to important differences in the sociolinguistic context in which the standard languages developed in the two countries, and the fact that the more restructured versions of English (e.g. Black English) had little or no influence on the standard language, contrary to what happened in Brazil. It should be pointed out, though, that Kayne’s (2005b) approach is essentially a methodological one: in extreme cases it should be possible to pinpoint only one parametric difference to account for languages that differ from one another in very few aspects. Summing up, Kayne’s proposal, spelt out in (a) and (b) below, is apparently very close to the one Roberts has recently formalized (see this volume): (a) ‘Every parameter is a micro-parameter.’ (b) ‘Apparently macro-parametric differences might all turn out to dissolve into arrays of micro-parametric ones (i.e. into differences produced by the additive effects of some number of micro-parameters)’ (Kayne 2005b: 284).

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

5

As already mentioned, this conception has been challenged by Baker (see Baker 1996, 2008a,b), who argues for the existence of macroparameters in the sense that different values assigned to them produce very different languages. However, such parameters are not the effect of the addition of microparameters. Furthermore, such macroparameters are not associated with properties of functional categories as in the mainstream theory of parameters, but with general principles of grammar. Baker (2008b) proposes three parameters as instances of macroparameters: the head directionality parameter, the agreement parameter, and the polysynthesis parameter. For the sake of exemplifying the point, according to his (2008a) proposal, the agreement parameters are defined as such: (a) A functional head F agrees with NP only if NP asymmetrically c-commands F. (Yes: Niger-Congo (NC) languages; No: Indo-European (IE) languages) (b) A head F agrees with NP only if F values the case feature of NP or vice versa. (No: Niger-Congo languages; Yes: Indo-European languages) Those two parameters account for the fact that agreement between F and NP depends on case in European languages, independently of the position of the NP with respect to F (for instance, subjects agree with the verb in T both in pre-verbal and in post-verbal position, as long as T assigns nominative to them), while agreement between F and NP depends on whether the NP precedes F in NigerCongo languages. Therefore, in those languages only preceding subjects agree with the verb, and any preceding NP is able to agree with the verb as well. It is interesting to mention that Brazilian Portuguese tends to pattern with NC languages rather than with IE languages since agreement on the verb is strongly disfavoured with postverbal subjects, and non-subject pre-verbal phrases can agree with the verb (see Avelar, Cyrino, and Galves 2009). This can be taken as evidence that the so-called dialectal differences may involve macroparametric differences. But, as already mentioned, the very notion of dialect must be carefully considered, and cannot be taken as a homogeneous notion. Brazilian Portuguese is a ‘restructured’ version of Portuguese, and as such underwent important grammatical changes. Moreover, the fact that it seems to conform to the NC values of the agreement parameters rather than to the IE ones can be taken as evidence of the effect caused by its contact with African languages. The main empirical argument Baker (2008b) gives in favour of his analysis is statistical, which he summarizes in the following way: ‘The micro-parametric view should (all things being equal) expect that there will be many mixed languages, in which roughly half the functional heads show the IE behaviour and the other half show the NC behavior. In contrast, the view that there are macroparameters at work expects to find many languages of the Kinande type, many languages of the IE type, and only a few cases that are intermediate or hard to classify’ (Baker 2008b: 370). His survey of sixty-six languages supports the macroparametric approach, since while all

6

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

the IE languages and the NC languages consistently fix the value of parameters (a) and (b) as claimed above, there are very few languages that obey neither (a) nor (b), and it is still an open question whether some languages obey (a) and (b). In several recent papers (see this volume and Roberts and Holmberg 2010, a.o.), Roberts has proposed a formal way of conciliating the idea that macroparameters correspond to clusters—or networks—of microparameters, and the fact, emphasized by Baker, that the non-mixed (consistent) languages are more frequent than the mixed ones. In his model, the existence of macroparameters is derived from the specification of the same property on a group of categories. According to his analysis, the fact that the languages presenting this property trans-categorically, for instance harmonic head-final or head-initial languages, are more frequent than the mixed languages is not due to UG, but to ‘a conservative learning strategy’. The more specific choices imply a longer walk in the parametric space, which is disfavoured by a very general principle of economy that is not a specific property of UG but is part of what Chomsky (2008) calls the ‘third factor’. We come back to this later. An important novelty of this approach is that parameters themselves are only partially determined by UG, which contributes to their definition with the inventory of formal features, functional categories, and the specification of the basic processes of computation (Merge, Agree, etc). But the choices among options in the parameter schemata arise from a general human ‘ability to compute relations among sets’ (Roberts and Holmberg 2010: 51). The representation below, taken from Roberts (this volume), is an example of his proposal for parametric networks:

Do all probes trigger head-movement?

Y: polysynthesis (a)

Do some probes trigger head-movement?

N: analytic (b)

Y: does {C, T …} (c)?

A somewhat different approach is proposed by Uriagereka (2007). In his view, there are three sources of variation in languages. At the highest level, there are the ‘core parameters fixating structure through elementary information’ (Uriagereka 2007: 105) This would be the case of the polysynthesis parameter. A second level consists of ‘sub-case parameters [that] involve the customary untrained learning, via unconscious analytical processes that allow the child to compare second-order chunks of grammars’ (Uriagereka 2007: 105). These are likely to be similar, or rather close, to microparameters in the theories previously mentioned. The distinction established by Uriagereka is closer in nature to Baker’s than to Kayne’s and Roberts’. However, the novelty of his analysis consists in integrating another source of

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

7

variation into the parametric approach, one that is due not to unconscious acquisition, but to peripheral processes ‘involving such things as peer or adult pressure, and similar, as of now, unclear mechanisms’ (Uriagereka 2007: 105). This kind of variation (which he calls ‘micro-variation’), found both in acquisition data and in the speech of non-educated people, is governed by analogy and is subject to conscious manipulation of the speakers. Uriagereka illustrates his point with verb movement in interrogative sentences in English and Spanish when the wh-phrase is an adjunct. According to his analysis, such a movement is not required by the core grammar but takes place due to an analogy with verb movement to C when the wh-phrase is an argument. Relying on Uriagereka’s proposal, Sapp (this volume) accounts for the variation in the order V-Aux and Aux-V in the history of German and in modern dialects. He stresses the sensitiveness of this kind of parameter to sociolinguistic pressure. This approach is based on the distinction core/periphery proposed by Chomsky (Uriagereka’s quotation: 102): ‘[W]hat are called “languages” or “dialects” or even “idiolects” will [not conform — JU] to the systems determined by fixing the parameters of UG [ . . . ]. [E]ach actual “language” will incorporate a periphery of borrowings, historical residues, inventions, and so on [ . . . ]’ (Chomsky 1981: 7–8). To a certain extent, it recalls what Kroch (1994, 2001) calls grammar competition, since it brings into consideration phenomena that are not produced by a single (core) grammar. As claimed by Uriagereka himself, these are ‘unclear mechanisms’, which require closer and deeper examination. Among the questions raised by these kinds of phenomena is how they correlate with language change. Uriagereka claims that, in the absence of external causes, syntactic change begins in the periphery, when adult speakers come to use new syntactic patterns which were not in the input of their own acquisition, but may provide a new input for the next generations. As such, this can be the source of a new parametric setting at the other levels of parametrization. It might be the case that three different situations arise when peripheral phenomena are activated. One would be a stable variation, as in the case of Aux-V, V-Aux alternations in Middle High German (MHG) and modern German dialects discussed by Sapp, with a great sensitiveness to sociolinguistic factors. But, as predicted by Uriagereka, there can also be changes provoked by this kind of variation, when one of the forms becomes prestigious to the point that speakers consciously dismiss the other forms. According to Sapp, this is what caused MHG to change into Modern Standard German (MSG). It is interesting to note, however, that some of the changes driven by sociolinguistic pressure can fail, after a period of growth. Postma (2010) was the first work, to our knowledge, to propose a formal model for failed changes. An interesting case is found in the history of Brazilian Portuguese with respect to clitic-placement. Pagotto (1992) and Carneiro and Galves (2010) have shown that enclisis in V2 contexts increases in letters written in Brazil by both educated and semi-educated people in parallel to what happened in Portugal one

8

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

hundred years before. However, in Portugal the change went to completion, and in Brazil it was interrupted and the reverse tendency (from enclisis to proclisis) is found from the first half of the twentieth century on. Enclisis drops to very low figures at the end of the century. It is clear that the periphery has a role in failed changes. Brazilian Portuguese clitics clearly show that such changes involve phenomena that express properties contradictory with other aspects of the language. In the case of Portuguese, it was possible to show that these properties were borrowings from European Portuguese, the prestigious dialect. To showcase the role of the periphery in well-succeeded changes, however, requires more empirical work, in particular in determining whether the peripheric phenomena are previous (as in Uriagereka’s proposal) or subsequent (as in Kroch’s (2001) proposal) to the core grammatical changes. In the next section, we extend the discussion to other approaches to language change, focusing on the question of the dynamics of change. We briefly present the general framework of the Biolinguistic perspective on linguistic theory (Chomsky 2005, 2008) in which this question has been raised in the past few years.

1.4 The dynamics of change As discussed above, an important common feature of the new approaches to parameter theory is that they offer a better understanding of the relationship between what can vary among languages and the dynamics of change. They allow us to account for general long-noticed properties of linguistic change that not only were not explained in the previous models, but were contradictory with the predictions these models made on language change. This is the case of the unidirectionality of change, expressed, for instance, in the phenomenon of ‘grammaticalization’ (Meillet 1912). In the classical Principles and Parameters model, the generativist approach to acquisition and change predicted that changes can occur in any direction. This is not what has been reported in the history of languages. In that model, it is not even clear why languages cluster around large typological classes. As a matter of fact, Lightfoot (1999, 2006) has emphatically pointed out that it is impossible to predict in what ways languages are going to change, considering only the UG restrictions. But once there is a hierarchical model of parameters articulated with general UG-independent principles that guide learners to the simplest and more economical choices compatible with the PLD (Primary Linguistic Data), it becomes straightforward why changes go in the direction of the less marked value inside the parameter hierarchy. This is how Roberts and Roussou (2003) account for the grammaticalization phenomenon: when the trigger for some parametric value becomes ambiguous, for external reasons, ‘the learner will opt for the default option as part of the built-in preference of the learning device for simpler representations’ (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 17). Such an assumption entails a

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

9

certain simplification of structures, which is constitutive of grammaticalization, according to the authors. Grammaticalization has become a recurrent theme in diachronic generative syntax, and this volume reflects this tendency, following the path suggested by Roberts and Roussou (see Martins, Lash, and Hill, all this volume). However, not all changes are due to grammaticalization. Lash (this volume) argues that even category changes (a hallmark of grammaticalization) are not always a grammaticalization process in the formal sense assumed by Roberts and Roussou (2003). According to him, ‘non-parametric morphologization’ exists. The case at point involves the reanalysis of the Old Irish copular verb form daas as P(reposition), already reanalysed as C in a previous grammaticalization process, inside the complex preposition oldaas. Apparently, this change cannot be analysed as a grammaticalization process since (a) P is not a functional category, and (b) the reanalysis of daas as a preposition does not constitute a parametric change since the overall structure does not change with daas in P instead of in C. Lash notes that ‘it is a grammaticalization from the perspective of Givón (1971: 413), since it is an example of the development of today’s morphology [from] yesterday’s syntax’. The origin of the Irish comparative particle thus reveals a tension between grammaticalization as formally conceived and grammaticalization as discussed in the functionalist literature. This discussion has interesting consequences for syntactic theory, if it is taken in a provocative way. It could be argued that the reanalysis of daas into P is indeed a grammaticalization process from the formalist point of view, on the basis of Grimshaw’s (1991) theory of extended projections. It is not the role of this introduction to exploit such an idea, but it could be taken as a further illustration of how historical considerations support syntactic analyses. Coming back to the current discussion on the dynamics of change, it is worth emphasizing that the leading idea is that the source of the observed directions of change is not Universal Grammar itself but other components of the mind, referred to by Chomsky (2005, 2008) as the ‘third factor’ (see Biberauer and Zeijlstra, this volume). According to Chomsky (2005, 2008), the two first factors are genetic endowment (for language, Universal Grammar), and experience (for language, Primary Linguistic Data). The ‘third factor’ is defined by him as involving ‘language-independent principles of data processing, structural architecture, and computational efficiency, thereby providing some answers to the fundamental questions of biology of language, its nature and use, and perhaps even its evolution’ (Chomsky 2005: 9). The study of the effect of the ‘third factor’ on language acquisition and change is part of the Strong Minimalist Program, ‘which holds that language is an optimal solution to interface conditions that FL [Faculty of Language] must satisfy; that is, language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning’ (Chomsky 2008: 3). Yet, Chomsky is not precise on the nature of the ‘third factor’, beyond what one reads in the above quotes. It might be the case that the crucial contribution of

10

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

historical syntax to linguistic theory for the next years will be to help understand in a deeper sense this critical aspect of language evolution and change. The parameter theory previously discussed is part of this enterprise. As seen above, the hierarchical structure of parameters in Roberts’ approach is based on markedness considerations. The more marked options, which are the less economical ones in terms of the length of the description of the properties, are the more embedded ones. At the top of the trees one finds the macrodifferences around which the languages cluster. At the bottom of the tree one finds the microdifferences, producing more and more markedness. Third factor considerations will predict that languages will diachronically move up the hierarchy. A new comparative historical trend is emerging from the MP, within which it is possible to tackle primordial issues of the field on linguistic change with a fresh perspective. One such issue is the notion of drift (Sapir 1921) at the origin of ‘parallel changes’ among genetically related languages, reinterpreted as the ‘chain-effect of an inherited change’ (see Gianollo, this volume). Another major and foundational issue of modern historical linguistics has to do with reconstruction and the establishment of levels of parenthood among related languages through genetic trees. According to Gianollo et al. (2008), ‘parametric linguistics [. . . .] may best bridge the gap between the two most fruitful paradigms in the history of the language sciences, the historical–comparative paradigm, founded in the XIX century, and the biolinguistic one, developed within the wider cognitive science framework in the second half of the XX.’ The challenge is to reproduce with syntactic data the genetic classification obtained on the basis of lexical evidence. Gianollo et al. (2008), Guardiano and Longobardi (2005), Longobardi and Guardiano (2009), and Longobardi (this volume) show that this is a feasible task, extending to a much greater level of details, and to a minimalist view of parameters, the approach initially worked out by Baker (2001).

1.5 About methodology and data Besides the theoretical aspects that strongly integrate the chapters of this book into the current trends of the parametric minimalist research programme, it is worth emphasizing some features of the papers that are representative of recent developments in the treatment and use of data in generative grammar. By nature, historical syntax makes use of quantitative approaches in order to circumvent the lack of grammaticality judgements from native speakers. Within the Chomskyan approach to language, this was taken as a serious handicap in the field for a long time. In her 1987 dissertation, Adams already claimed that such a handicap could be overcome by a sufficiently rich theory. The spectacular growth of the field in subsequent years showed that she was right. But at the same time, historical syntax became a laboratory in which methods borrowed from other approaches to language became harmonically integrated into the inquiry on the grammars of (past) languages.

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

11

Statistics, probability, and corpus linguistics are now a current practice in generative historical syntax. Moreover, recent diachronic studies have also integrated linguistic information that was traditionally ignored in the synchronic generative approaches, such as dialectal and colloquial data (see Sapp, and Bernstein and Zanuttini, this volume) as well as sociolinguistic factors. To conclude, this book is the witness of a twofold movement in the field of generative grammar: on one hand, a quest for the narrowest possible syntax, on the other, a broadening of empirical bases, including phenomena up to now considered as marginal to syntax—more generally to grammar—(such as emphasis, colloquial expressions, data from dialect studies), as well as the extensive use of quantitative methods based on large corpora.

1.6 An overview of the volume 1.6.1 Parameters and language change Guido Mensching discusses parameters in Old Romance word order, especially fronted topics, and develops a theory that explains the fact that the medieval stages of several Romance languages allowed both for XP-V-Subject structures and for Aux-XP-Participle. Both properties, according to the author, can be modelled in a minimalist framework, where the fronted element in the XP-V-Subject structure occupies Spec,TP by means of checking T0’s EPP feature. The constituent moves first to an outer specifier of vP, to the left of the subject, from where either the subject or the non-subject constituent can move upwards, since they are both specifiers of v0. The Aux-XP-Participle structure is argued to provide evidence for this landing site in the outer specifier of vP. In Modern Romance, the EPP feature in v0 that caused this movement in Old Romance is no longer available. A clitic has to be merged, which introduces an EPP feature into the derivation in order to provide an intermediate landing site for the constituent to move to, and hence we have the Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) structures. The parameter at stake, then, is the existence of v0’s optional EPP feature which triggers the movement of XPs to its specifier. Chris Sapp takes verbal complexes in Middle High German and some modern varieties to be amenable to microparametric variation. The chapter touches upon the question of whether parameters have only one flavour or more than one depending on the type of phenomena that will trigger them. Empirically, the author analyzes the order of the verbs inside a ‘verbal complex’ in subordinate clauses in German. In complexes of two verbs, there are two possible orders: the non-finite verb before the finite one (the so-called 2-1 order) or the inverse order (1-2). In Modern Standard German (MSG) the 1-2 order is ungrammatical. However, according to the author, it was attested in earlier stages of German, especially in Middle High German (circa

12

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

1050–1350) and is also found in some contemporary dialects. He shows that the 1-2 order is fairly stable from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries (ranging from 32.2 to 35.5%), rapidly declining in the fifteenth century to 15.7%, falling to 8.5% in the sixteenth, probably becoming obsolete in the modern language. His data supports the hypothesis according to which the decline of the 1-2 order was prescriptive, since the most formal genres examined have the lowest rates of the 1-2 order. Previous analyses of the facts propose that there was a parametric change in the history of German, where the occurrence of the 1-2 order was related to a tendency towards the VO word order—in the Middle Ages—to a consistent verb-final word order (thus, 2-1) in the modern standard variety. However, Sapp disputes the matter showing that the order of elements within the verbal complex cannot be taken as evidence for VO, claiming, therefore, that no change in the global order parameter has occurred. According to him, the 2-1 versus 1-2 distinction can be independent of SOV or SVO word orders. He follows Kroch and Taylor (2000) claiming that the key diagnostic has to do with a VO language having heavy and light elements to the right of V. He shows, however, that in his data extraposed elements tend to be heavy or focused, thus concluding that the basic German clause has not changed, having always been OV. Nevertheless, he also shows that the order of elements within the verbal complex is sensitive to factors such as prosody, focus, and register, which leads him to hypothesize that the verb-complex order results from changes to a microparameter at the periphery of the grammatical system, adopting Uriagereka’s (2006) proposal, according to which syntactic change begins in the periphery, where extra-linguistic factors may cause adults to learn and use syntactic patterns that were not in the input when they acquired the language as children. Joel Wallenberg investigates the relationship between acquisition and change in the change from a German-like Tense-final grammar to a Tense-medial grammar in the history of Yiddish, and addresses the issue of the nature of the parameter involved in this change. He assumes Yang’s (2000) model of acquisition, in which, in a situation of grammar competition, the most successful grammar is the one that produces the highest frequency of unambiguous outputs. However, a first analysis of the data shows that the frequency of ambiguous data is higher in Tense-medial grammar than in Tense-final grammar, predicting wrongly that the latter should have won out over the former. A solution to this paradox is suggested by data from acquisition of Modern German, a uniform Tense-final language. Children have been reported to produce what appears to be Tense-medial sentences, due to the use of the verb projection raising (VPR) construction. The author relies on the antisymmetric approach to word order to claim that the Aux-Verb order characteristic of VPR represents the underlying left-headed order of verbal heads in the structure. From this point of view, VPR constructions are no more an unambiguous expression of Tense-final languages. Once they are removed from the set of non-ambiguous Tense-final sentences, the Tense-medial grammar is correctly predicted to win

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

13

over the Tense-final one. The author concludes emphasizing the importance of the interaction between acquisition studies, quantitative historical work, and a careful understanding of the nature of the structures involved. In the following chapter, Adriana Cardoso studies the phenomenon of extraposition of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs) in the history of Portuguese. She argues that this construction is not generated by the same syntactic process in Contemporary European Portuguese (CEP) and in earlier stages of Portuguese, until the sixteenth century. She shows that in CEP there are restrictions on the possible antecedents of extraposed RRCs: they can be weak NPs in the sense of Milsark (1974), post-verbal subjects, wh, focus, or affective fronted phrases. But they cannot be PPs, strong NPs, pre-verbal subjects, or topic fronted phrases. Assuming Kayne’s (1994) raising analysis of relative clauses, the author argues that this cluster of properties can be accounted for if extraposition of RRCs in CEP is derived from VP-internal stranding. In earlier stages of Portuguese, however, no such restrictions are found. The author claims that it is because the process underlying extraposition is different. She proposes that it is coordination plus ellipsis. She then argues that this kind of construction was lost when IP-scrambling was lost. With the loss of IPscrambling, there was a decrease of the frequency of the contexts of extraposition in general, which was at the origin of the reanalysis of extraposition from RRCs. She concludes that extraposition from RRCs cannot be derived from a uniform analysis, since it displays different properties in different languages. Ribeiro and Torres Morais discuss doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese (OldP), and compare them to similar constructions in Contemporary Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and European Portuguese (EP). Based on Rizzi’s (1997) layered CP, with the refinements proposed by Benincà and Poletto (2004) and Benincà (2004), they argue that the V2 requirement in OldP is satisfied by the projection of Spec,Fin, with the verb in Fin, or Spec,Foc with the verb raised from Fin to Foc. Furthermore, V>2 orders occur when some discoursively prominent constituents are merged in the higher categories Top and Frame. They also argue that in OldP Fin must have a phonological realization (in Roberts’ (2001) terms, it is Fin*). This can be achieved in three ways: movement from Fin to Force (realized as ‘que’), when the left-periphery is not activated; movement of the verb to Fin; or merge of ‘que’ in Fin, when FocP is not activated and some frame/topic constituent is merged in Spec,Fin. As frame/topic constituents are not V-related, this is a last resort strategy, which is at the origin of doubling-que constructions. In order to explain the possible order in which the second ‘que’ precedes a Focus phrase, they assume that ‘que’ can also merge in Top. Brazilian and European Portuguese also display doubling-que constructions, but they have different properties, both from OldP and from one another. The authors argue that in BP, the topicalized constituents preceding ‘que’ merge in Spec,Frame/Topic, and not in Spec,Fin, as shown by the fact that some parenthetical phrase can occur between the topic and ‘que’. Both

14

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

BP and EP can have more than one ‘que’ below Force. They differ however with respect to the interpretation of the second sandwiched phrase, which is normally interpreted as a focus in the former and as a topic in the latter. The authors conclude that the phenomenon of doubling-que has always existed in the history of Portuguese, but that it underwent diachronic changes. This explains why it competes with different processes along time: with V-to-Fin in Old Portuguese, and with zero morphology in the modern languages. Through the comparison of two independent changes in BP and Caribbean Spanish (CS), that is, the loss of referential null subjects and the loss of VSX order in wh-interrogative clauses, Mary Kato also addresses a microparametric issue. Her guiding question, based on Kayne (2000), involves finding out what the minimal units of syntactic variation are. Within such a framework, Kato proposes that the changes in both domains in BP as well as in CS were triggered by a single change: an affixal type pronominal agreement which turned into a free weak pronoun paradigm in both languages, albeit the change having taken place for different reasons in each one of them. Following Toribio (1996) and Duarte (1995), respectively, the author shows that what caused the impoverishment in CS was the deterioration of the inflectional endings on verbs, while in BP it was caused by the replacement of second person pronouns—both singular and plural—by nominal addressing forms which are grammatically treated as third person. For Kato, the pronominal agreement is understood as the grammaticalization or incorporation of personal pronouns in the verbal inflection. Therefore, she claims that they are in complementary distribution with weak pronouns and subject clitics, which naturally explains that the loss of one form implies the introduction of the other. The consequence of having weak pronouns in the language, according to Kato’s proposal, is the projection of the Spec,IP position and, thus, the possibility of such pronouns appearing pre-verbally in declarative or in wh-questions. The first case has to do with the loss of referential null subjects and the second one with differences in the order of constituents in whquestions. In that respect, the chapter makes a methodological contribution by showing that since word order is often determined by information criteria, it is a mistake to compare VS and SV sentences without considering the type of pronoun (weak or strong) and the information status of the DP subject position. The author shows that this is precisely the key to understand that the change in word order involved different realizations of the subject, the lexicalized DPs being the most resistant ones to the new word order, a fact also found in Caribbean Spanish by Ordoñez and Olarrea (2006). Such a conclusion carries on to explain how both languages shift from the use of the low vP periphery to signal information structure to an exclusive use of the IP periphery. Chris Reintges introduces the concepts of macro- and microparameters and presents a case study in which a macroparameter (agglutinativity/syntheticity) can have its setting changed (to analyticity), by observing the loss of verb movement from Ancient Egyptian to Coptic Egyptian. Ancient Egyptian (2600 to 2000 bc) was

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

15

a rigid VSO language with rich tense agglutinative (synthetic) inflection, and no subject verb agreement. Coptic Egyptian (third to eleventh century ad) is analytic and SVO, presenting initial tense/aspect particles, besides an intricate system of vowel alternation in the verb stem to indicate the argument structure. In this language, verb-tense relation, as argued by the author, is done via Agree, and not movement, contrary to what seemed to be at play in Ancient Egyptian. By relying on Biberauer and Roberts’ (2010) hypothesis for verb-movement as reprojection in rich tense languages, the author proposes a structure for Ancient Egyptian that includes the position of tense in a Fin head, above Mood and Aspect. The VSO order and other aspects of the syntax of the language are thus accounted for. With the loss of verb movement to the highest head, the particles carrying tense/aspect remain in that position, but the verb is lower, below the DP subject. The analyticity parameter, then, changes in this language, yielding the observed order in Coptic Egyptian. In ‘A diachronic shift in the expression of person’, Judy Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini study the encoding of phi-features in two varieties of English that are historically related, Older Scots and Appalachian English, and compare it to that of standard English. They argue that in Older Scots (fourteenth to seventeenth centuries), as well as in contemporary Appalachian English, its descendent, person is marked in the inflectional system, even if this does not correspond to a full set of morphological distinctions. In Older Scots, the affix -s appears on the verb in cooccurrence with full NP subjects and with pronouns that are not adjacent to the verb. The hypothesis put forth by the authors is that verbal -s is a generalized person marker that is in complementary distribution with pronouns cliticized to T. The fact that Older Scots displays the clustering of properties found in Icelandic, a language that marks person, supports the idea that Older Scots also encodes person in its inflectional system. In particular, the authors argue that person marking on the verb reflects a syntactic structure in which person occupies a functional head distinct from T. This straightforwardly derives the fact that two positions are available for subjects, thus capturing the existence of transitive expletive constructions in Older Scots. In standard English verbal -s shifted to encode number (singular), not person. According to the authors, Older Scots and contemporary standard English instantiate two opposite values of the person parameter. In the latter, contrary to the former, there is no independent functional head hosting the person feature; hence the features of T can be checked via sisterhood and verb raising is not required. Interestingly, Appalachian English instantiates an intermediate situation with respect to the setting of the parameter: it instantiates both its positive value (person is encoded in an independent functional head) and its negative value (person is not encoded in an independent functional head). The first setting yields a grammatical result only in the presence of a finite auxiliary or modal, which can raise and check the person feature; the second yields a grammatical derivation not only with a finite auxiliary or modal, but also with a finite lexical verb, since it does not require raising.

16

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

The authors conclude that Appalachian English is a dialect in transition between a grammatical system that encodes person on an independent functional head and one that does not, a transition that might lead to not expressing person in the inflectional system at all, as is the case in contemporary standard English. The chapter by John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida puts forward facts showing that related parametric changes in non-accusative languages have to do with the mechanisms for case licensing on objects. The authors’ main argument is that nonaccusative alignment is the result of the change in a small number of specific parameter settings. They propose that a specific subtype of v assigns inherent case to the external argument in Spec,v, and that makes v unable to check the case feature of the object. The object, then, has to check its case feature by other means: either by an Agree relation with T (which is exemplified by the Indo-Iranian languages in the paper), or by the movement of the object to the specifier of a functional category outside vP to check its case (exemplified by the Old Japanese, an ‘active’ language). In so doing, the authors also make claims as to how these configurations arise: a) they argue against the well-known proposal that ergatives arise from passives by showing that the real source can be the possessive þ participle constructions, which will give rise to the tense-sensitive ergative alignment; b) they add several arguments to show that passive is not a plausible source for ergative alignment; c) they demonstrate that active alignment can be reanalyzed as accusative (in the case of the change from Old Japanese to Japanese). Indo-Iranian and Japanese provide support for the authors’ claim that parametric change may arise in the two instances of parametric settings for non-accusative alignment: whether or not lexical ergative is assigned to all external arguments in Spec,vP in transitive clauses (i.e. ergative languages), or lexical ‘active’ case is assigned to agentive subjects in all clause types, including intransitive unergative (i.e. ‘active languages’). In the following chapter, Elliott Lash approaches Modern Irish comparative particle ná ‘than’ and shows that it is a phonologically reduced and syntactically reanalyzed form of the Old Irish sequence ol daäs ‘beyond how is’. The chapter asserts that the history of this particle is particularly instructive as a case study in grammaticalization. Lash argues that there are two steps in the change of ná: 1) in terms of Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) proposal that grammaticalization is upwards reanalysis due to parameter resetting, Lash proposes a shift from V (in T) to C on account of a shift in the parameter setting of C. More specifically, this would be a shift from C[tense]*Agree to C[tense]*Merge. This shift produced a V to C category change, a case of grammaticalization; 2) in the second step, as a C element, the particle was unstressed and could cliticize to the preposition before it at PF. This led to the possibility of analyzing the original verb as prepositional agreement, whence a C to P shift. This second step cannot be seen as a formal process of grammaticalization as it does not appear to conform to Roberts and Roussou’s theory of grammaticalization as a phenomenon

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

17

associated with upward reanalysis due to parameter change. This is, however, a process of grammaticalization from the perspective of Givón (1971: 413), since it is an example of the development of ‘today’s morphology [from] yesterday’s syntax’. Lash’s work, therefore, shows that Irish ná reveals a tension between grammaticalization as formally conceived and grammaticalization as discussed in the functionalist literature. In ‘Deictic locatives, emphasis and metalinguistic negation’, Ana Maria Martins discusses the concept of metalinguistic negation. She acknowledges that the standard predicative negation marker may express metalinguistic negation as well, but shows that unambiguous metalinguistic markers are part of natural language and are particularly revealing with respect to the syntactic dimension of metalinguistic negation. In general, languages unambiguously express metalinguistic negation through certain sentence-peripheral idiomatic expressions that lexically vary crosslinguistically (and within the same language) but nonetheless display a similar syntax. Some languages, however, also display sentence-internal unambiguous metalinguistic negation markers, which correspond to a typologically rarer option. With this background in mind, the author discusses the deictic locatives lá (there)/cá (here) as sentence-internal metalinguistic negation markers in European Portuguese, and proposes an account for their development as such, while preserving their regular role as locatives. It is proposed that lá/cá entered the functional system as T-related emphatic markers, which later developed into C-related elements. Martins also discusses how this particular feature of European Portuguese correlates with other grammatical properties of the language. She proposes that Spec,TP is not the subject position in European Portuguese, but it is an Utterance-time (UT-T) position. Hence, deictic locatives can be merged in Spec,TP in two ways: scrambled argumental locatives move from VP to Spec,TP, signalling UT-T but preserving their locative meaning; non-argumental locatives can be directly merged in Spec,TP, in order to give visibility to the speaker at UT-T, with the interpretative result of emphasis. Additional movement to the C field derives metalinguistic negation declaratives, in which the emphatic meaning is preserved while further meaning is added. The emphatic value of the deictic locatives cá/lá (bleached from their locative meaning) is attested in European Portuguese from the sixteenth century, in declarative and imperative clauses, and in rhetorical questions, which offer the natural pragmatic and syntactic link with metalinguistic negation. 1.6.2 Dynamics of change and parameter theory The chapter by Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra deals with variation in the Afrikaans negation system which arose during the course of the twentieth century. The authors describe the negation system of two varieties of the language, Afrikaans A (standard Afrikaans) and Afrikaans B (a variety of modern colloquial Afrikaans).

18

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

They show how different Afrikaans is from standard Dutch: the latter is a double negation language, in which each negator contributes its own semantic negation, with the result that two negators will be interpreted as conveying a form of positive meaning, whereas standard Afrikaans is a peculiar type of Negative Concord language, which (a) systematically requires a clause-final negation element (nie) to co-occur with the medial negation marker and also with negative indefinites, and (b) does not exhibit Negative Concord with multiple negative indefinites. In Afrikaans B, a form of colloquial variety of Afrikaans spoken by younger people, on the other hand, Negative Concord is systematic, as one would expect in a strict Negative Concord language. The authors offer a feature-based generative analysis of both systems and consider how the variations on the standard pattern might have arisen, placing learnability considerations and Chomsky’s ‘three factors’ model centre stage. They argue that the Afrikaans A negation system cannot be acquired on the basis of the input the acquirer is exposed to, and that, as a consequence, we might expect Afrikaans A to be an unstable system. The authors show that such unstable systems are prone to give rise to variation and, under the right circumstances, to change. In ‘Romanian “can”: change in parametric settings’, Virginia Hill argues that the syntax of putea (‘can’) reflects on broader changes in the language, especially on the switch from infinitive to subjunctive complementation—which is an important panBalkanic parametric change. On the basis of data from Early Modern Romanian, she shows that the change in the behaviour of the modal cannot receive a satisfactory explanation on the basis of lexical and modal semantics alone, and that the modal values are systematically read off the syntactic configuration. Diachronically, this configuration has developed over several stages of grammaticalization: full-fledged verb > control verb > raising verb > modal auxiliary > pragmatic marker. Following Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) proposal on grammaticalization, the author shows that the changes in the syntax and the interpretation of putea arise from its reanalysis, by merging it at higher and higher levels in the structure hierarchy. These levels are diagnosed by considering the location of adverbs and of functional projections that encode agreement, tense, aspect, and sentence type. This analysis provides a unified account for the variations in the syntax of putea, while also revealing an important condition for the parametric switch in non-finite complementation: the switch applies only to CP infinitive complements, not to AspP/vPs (which are still displaying the infinitive after the modal auxiliary putea). This case study provides support for a view that shifts the explanation on modal variation and use to a parametric scenario in which setting or re-setting of values is only driven by syntactic terms. Chiara Gianollo discusses the parallel development of Romance languages, concentrating on the sequence of morpho-syntactic changes affecting the realization of arguments of nominal heads (genitives) from Latin to Romance. The data in this study comes from a corpus search over Late Latin (third to fourth century ad) and

Parameter theory and dynamics of change

19

Old French texts (eleventh to thirteenth century ad), with the addition of some Middle French data (until 1600). The author observes the expression of adnominal arguments and shows that it undergoes a deep restructuring from Latin to the modern Romance languages: genitives, which are inflectionally encoded in Latin and occur in a variety of configurations with respect to the head noun, come to be realized, in the Western Romance varieties, uniquely by means of post-nominal prepositional phrases headed by the originally ablative preposition de. Despite such restructuring being commonly considered to be a consequence of the general process of deflexion observed in the transition from Latin to Romance, the author claims that neither the substantial similarity of outcomes in the Western Romance languages, nor the existence of intermediate stages with coexisting inflectional and prepositional realizations, can be exhaustively addressed by uniquely attributing this change to morphological impoverishment. She proposes a syntactic analysis of Old French inflectional genitives (realized with the cas-régime absolu), which is able to capture the diachronic link to the Latin genitive constructions and to elucidate the succession of steps leading to the generalization of the prepositional realization in the modern descendant. In this way, she interprets the parallel development of prepositional genitives in Romance as a chain-effect of an original inherited change, which supports the idea that a parametric model of syntactic variation combined with some theoretical assumptions about the dynamics of change can lead us to choose in a principled way among competing hypotheses of syntactic change. In ‘Convergence in parametric phylogenies: homoplasy or principled explanation?’ Longobardi addresses the issue of whether historical relatedness between languages can be measured on the basis of syntactic information. He argues that this is a feasible task if we take parameters as primitives, since each possible grammar can be represented as a string of binary symbols expressing parameter values, and thus distances between languages can be compared through the parametric comparison method (PCM) proposed in Longobardi and Guardiano (2009). In this method, each pair of languages is assigned an ordered pair of identities and differences from which a distance can be computed. This is applied to twenty-three languages, on the basis of sixty-three parameters for the DP internal structure. The chapter emphasizes the importance of parametric implications in the comparison of languages since, for each given language, positive or negative values of some parameters have a strong effect on the relevance/irrelevance of other parameters. Longobardi then addresses ‘the puzzle of parametric convergence’ instantiated by Romance languages, i.e. the fact that Modern Romance languages are much closer to each other than they are to their common ancestor: Latin. According to the author, a great part of the answer to this puzzle lies in the strong implicational structure of UG parameters, as expressed by the fact that out of twenty-one clear common innovations found in French and Italian, nine are shifts from Latin null values, and therefore the effect of what the author calls ‘pre-existing conditions’ of the syntax

20

Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, and Ruth Lopes

of the proto-language. This result, due to the PCM, and ultimately to a fine-grained parameter theory, opens the way to new trends in long-distance historical issues. Finally, the chapter by Ian Roberts works out a formal way of conciliating the idea that macroparameters correspond to clusters—or networks—of microparameters, and the fact, emphasized by Baker, that the non-mixed (consistent) languages are more frequent than the mixed ones. In Roberts’ proposal, the existence of macroparameters is derived from the specification of the same property on a group of categories. According to his analysis, the fact that languages presenting this property trans-categorically, for instance, harmonic head-final or head-initial languages, are more frequent than mixed languages is not due to UG, but to ‘a conservative learning strategy’. The more specific choices imply a longer walk in the parametric space, which is disfavoured by a very general principle of economy that is not a specific property of UG but is part of the ‘third factor’. From this point of view, parameters themselves are only partially determined by UG, which contributes to their definition with the inventory of formal features, functional categories, and the specification of the basic processes of computation (merge, agree, etc.). But the choices among options in the parameter schemata arise from a general human ‘ability to compute relations among sets’ (Roberts and Holmberg 2010: 51). The author illustrates his proposal in detail with different parameter hierarchies: word order, null arguments, word structure, and alignment.

2 Parameters in Old Romance word order1 A comparative minimalist analysis GUIDO MENSCHING

2.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to discuss and analyse the following two structures, which can be found in the medieval stages of many Romance languages: (1)

yo porque tomases ejiemplo. OS a. E esto fiz and this did-1sg. I because took-subj.2sg. example ‘And I did this for you to have an example’ (Conde Lucanor, enx. 2) lo re a grande maraviglia. b. Questo tenne this held-3sg. the king to great miracle ‘The king considered this a great miracle’ (Novellino 7) c. Con tanta with so-much ‘She bore this Ribeiro 1995b:

1

OI

paceença soffria ela esta enfermidade. OGal/P patience suffered-3sg. she this disease disease so patiently’ (Diàlogos de São Gregório; quoted in 114; cf. Benincà 2004: 262)

This chapter is a slightly revised version of the paper I presented at the DiGS 11 conference in Campinas. I would like to thank my colleagues in the audience for their helpful comments. I am also grateful to Frank Savelsberg for his advice on the Old Ibero-Romance data. Some parts of section 2.4 are the result of an ongoing research project (‘Components of Romance Syntax’), which I am carrying out in cooperation with Eva-Maria Remberger (University of Konstanz). I would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for funding this project, and our research team, in particular Ion Giurgea and Anja Weingart. For some details and results of the project that bear on the ideas on information structure presented in section 2.4, cf. Mensching and Remberger (2011), Giurgea and Remberger (2009, in press).

22 (2)

Guido Mensching a. porque ella non avia las cartas resçebidas OS because she not had-3sg. the letters-f.pl. received-part.-f.pl. ‘because she had not received the letters’ (L. De Buen Amor, I 191a, cf. Batllori, Sánchez, and Suñer 1995:204) b. avrebbono a Alessandro e forse alla donna OI have-cond.-3pl. to A. and maybe to-the woman fatta villania done-f. affront-f. ‘they would have affronted A. and perhaps the lady, too’ (Boccaccio, Dec. 2,3) c. en preſe~za deſ taſ teſ temoiaſ que ſ om en eſ ta carta OGal/P in presence of-these witnesses-f. that are-3pl. in this document ſ criptaſ t pera aqueſ to ſ pecialmente chamadaſ written-f.pl. and for this specially called-part.-f.pl. ‘in the presence of these witnesses, which are mentioned in this letter and were specially summoned for this purpose’ (AM 1265, 45,20)

The examples in (1), which I shall refer to as the XP-V-S structure, show the fronting of a constituent to the left periphery, where the subject appears in a postverbal position. Although this structure resembles modern focus fronting constructions, e.g. in Spanish, it can be shown that the fronted constituents in Old Romance are mostly topics.2 The relevant examples would therefore show a clitic in Modern Romance, and I shall examine the hypothesis that the lack of clitics (i.e. clitic left dislocation, CLLD) might indicate an important parameter that separates the medieval from the modern stages of the Romance languages. In (2), the Aux-XP-Part. structure, we see a constituent that appears between an auxiliary and a participle. This structure has sometimes been interpreted as ‘short-distance scrambling’ (SDS) in the literature (for SDS cf. among others, Haider and Rosengren 1998), i.e. movement of a constituent to a lower part of the clause, not as high as TP or CP. The leading hypothesis of this article is that the XP-V-S structure in (1) and the Aux-XP-Part. structure in (2) are related to each other and can possibly be regarded as the result of the same parameter. The main idea (in the sense of a ‘lexical parameter’) is that v0 had an [EPP]-feature as an option, generalized for attracting

2

This can be quite easily seen in (1a.) and (1b.), taking into account that esto / questo refer backwards to a specific content that is narrated before the sentence at issue. In fact, demonstratives are very frequently found in this structure. An exact information structural analysis lies beyond the scope of this chapter. Such an analysis (for Ibero-Romance) is the subject of an ongoing research project by Frank Savelsberg (Freie Universität Berlin). Some first results were presented in Mensching and Savelsberg (2009), where it appears that, in Old Spanish and Old Catalan, the fronted constituents are most frequently topics, and not foci.

Parameters in Old Romance word order

23

all kinds of phrases to its (outer) specifier. As a consequence, XPs were accessible to positions higher than vP (cf. Mensching 2003). The examples in (3), with participle fronting, will serve as additional evidence that can be found at least in some medieval Romance varieties: (3)

as tú otro tal a los otros. OS a. Fecho done-part. have-2sg. you other such to the others ‘You have done the same to the others’ (Cal. 301; cf. Batllori 1992: 106) dito he b. ſ ſ eguu~do according-to said-part. have-1sg. ‘according to what I have said’ (AM 1351, 57, 9)

OGal/P

I shall argue (against Fontana 1993) that Old Romance participle fronting must be analysed as (remnant) VP-movement. Since the remnant movement analysis of an example such as (3a) presupposes that some constituents have been removed from VP previous to its movement, the extra specifier position of vP that I assume can be regarded as an appropriate landing site. The general framework that I am adopting here is the Minimalist Program, in particular the versions sketched in Chomsky (2000 et seq.). I shall assume that C, T, v, and D are the core functional categories (CFCs), and that the basic syntactic operations are merge and agree, the latter being based on a probing mechanism. I shall furthermore assume the existence of [EPP]-features, maybe universally present on T, and, as an option, on other categories. Head movement will be provisionally formalized by a head attraction feature ([HAF]) (cf. Pomino 2008). This chapter is organized as follows: In section 2.2, I briefly sketch the state of the art with respect to the structures exemplified in (1) and (2). While doing so, I shall also summarize some articles by Poletto (2005 et seq.), in which the structures in (1) and (2), at least for Old Italian, are related to each other in a cartographic analysis by postulating a parameter. In section 2.3, I present my own analysis, the core of which was already briefly sketched in Mensching (2003). In addition to some more data of the types presented in (1) and (2), I shall argue that participle fronting (cf. (3)) as well as the contrast between the Old Romance structures and the modern CLLD structures can provide further evidence for my analysis. In this section I shall also review some more literature, in particular Batllori’s (1992) and Fontana’s (1993) views on participle fronting. The main part of section 2.4 will be dedicated to show how the analysis presented in section 2.3 can be expressed by ‘lexical parameters’ in the sense of lexical entries for functional categories, following Chomsky’s (1995 et seq.) hypothesis that parameters should mostly follow from the lexicon. I shall slightly extend the common minimalist view on [EPP] checking by tentatively assuming information structural probes. Note that, as far as the left periphery is concerned,

24

Guido Mensching

this chapter is essentially on fronted topics. Still in section 2.4, after a short summary, I briefly address the issue of fronted focus constituents. I shall finally present some notes on grammaticalization. It is clear that the medieval stages of the Romance languages were not uniform. It nevertheless seems that almost all of them admitted the structures shown in (1) and (2). I shall therefore use the term Old Romance (languages) as a kind of abstraction, being aware of the fact that future studies will bring forth some differences. Since the literature on the relevant structures is mostly language specific (see section 2.2 for references) but nevertheless shows very similar data, I agree to the view expressed by Benincà (2004) that one should now try to look at the phenomena at issue from a pan-Romance view. I take this chapter to be a first, albeit very general and simplifying approach into this direction, at least concerning structures like those illustrated in (1) to (3).

2.2 Some remarks on the state of the art In this section, I briefly review the main lines of analysis of the XP-V-S structures illustrated in (1) and the Aux-XP-Part. structures exemplified in (2). This overview does not aim at completeness. There is, in fact, much more literature on these structures (see e.g. Kaiser (2002) for a more extensive review). The fact that Old Romance often presents XP-V-S structures as those in (1) was already observed in generative syntax in the nineteen eighties, e.g. by Benincà (1984) and Adams (1987b), among others, who interpreted this word order as a verb second structure similar to German. They thus analyse sentences like those in (1) as structures in which either the subject or a non-subject constituent is in Spec,CP and the verb in C0. When a non-subject constituent is moved to Spec,CP, the subject remains in its base position, which in the nineteen eighties was still considered to be Spec,IP:

(4) [CP esto [C0 fiz [IP yo … fiz esto]]]

(cf. ex. (1a.))

However, it was quickly noted that, in contrast to a V2 language like German, the relevant Old Romance structures also occurred in subordinate clauses, such as (5): (5)

est li rois venus quant a aus when to them is the king come-part. ‘when the King came to them’ (Chrétien de Troyes 573, cf. Dupuis 1989)

OF

Parameters in Old Romance word order

25

Therefore, it was suggested, e.g. by Dupuis (1989), Fontana (1993), Lemieux and Dupuis (1995), among others, that such structures should be given an interpretation along the lines of (6), similar to Diesing’s (1990) analysis for Yiddish:3 (6)

CP C' C0 quant

IP Spec,IP

[a aus]i

I' I0 est

VP V'

Spec,VP V' li rois V0 venus

PP ti

Notably, this analysis, in which Spec,IP can function as an A’-position, was made possible thanks to the VP internal subject hypothesis (Koopman and Sportiche 1985, Fukui and Speas 1986, Kuroda 1988): The XP-V-S order could now be explained by assuming that the subject remains in situ and another constituent moves to Spec,IP. Interestingly, by the end of the nineteen nineties, with Rizzi’s (1997) split-CP hypothesis, many scholars returned to the old idea that the fronted constituent in sentences such as (1) and (5) is located in the CP domain (see, e.g., Benincà 2004, Ledgeway 2005, Poole 2006, Labelle 2007, Poletto 2008, among many others). Evidently, this approach is able to naturally account for cases of Old Romance V3 or even V4 structures, which in the preceding models illustrated in (4) and (6) had to be explained by CP or IP recursion or adjunction to CP or IP, respectively.4 An example that is often adduced comes from one of the first Italo-Romance documents, cf. (7a.) and the analysis in (7b.):

3

Also cf. Kaiser (2002), with arguments from a language acquisition and change perspective, as well as Roberts (1993). As Kaiser (2002) remarks, the only Romance varieties that have a real German style V2 structure are the Swiss Rhaeto-Romance (Rumantsch) dialects, which I shall not consider in this chapter. 4

For IP recursion, see Roberts (1993) (AgrP recursion in his framework).

26

Guido Mensching

(7) a. Sao ko kelle terre per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta know-1sg. that those lands for those boundaries that here contains thirty anni le possette parte Santi Benedicti years them-cl possessed-3sg. party [Latin] Santi Benedicti ‘I know that those lands for those boundaries that enclose them, were owned thirty years by the party of Saint Benedict’ (Placitum from Capua, 960 ce; cf. Benincà 2004: 277, Poletto 2008: 134) b. Sao [ForceC0 ko [TopP kelle terre per kelle fini que ki contene [FocP TRENTA ANNI [C0 le possette [IP[SPEC parte Sancti Benedicti] . . . . . . . . . ]]]]] (cf. Benincà 2004: 278) It has to be noted though that this structure, apart from a focused constituent, shows a clitic left dislocated topic, thus being similar to the modern Romance structures.5 Although this account shows that Old Romance, at this early stage, already allowed for the modern structure, the analysis contains no syntactic explanation of why the clitic is often absent in Old Romance topicalization structures, whereas it is obligatory in the modern stages of almost all of these languages.6 Furthermore, in this model, the difference between Old and Modern Italian lies in the fact that the verb is also moved to the left periphery. More precisely it is assumed that, in Old Italian, verb movement leads to Foc0 if the focus field is activated. This explains the V2 effect in Old Italian. Note, however, that the frequent cases of XP-V-S, where XP is a topic, still remain unexplained. As for the lower part of the clause, the word order Aux-XP-Part. was analysed by Batllori (1992), based on the idea that Old Spanish haber, ser, and estar were still lexical verbs selecting a small clause (SC),7 so that the sentence in (8a.) would have the structure in (8b.): (8)

a. et fue en esto el mur engañado and was-3sg. in this the mouse misled-part. ‘and the mouse was misled by this’ (Cal. 349; cf. Batllori 1992: 101)

OS

5 With respect to the focus fronted constituent, Modern Romance varieties diverge from each other at least in two respects: first, the information structural status of the focused constituent, which may bear information focus in a very reduced set of languages such as Sardinian (cf. Mensching and Remberger 2010) and Sicilian (Cruschina 2006), but is restricted to contrastive focus in most varieties, as far as I can see (the case of Modern Italian treated in Rizzi 1997, but also of Modern Spanish, see Zubizarreta 1999); second, some varieties, such as Spanish and Sardinian, show an adjacency condition holding between the focused constituent and the verb that forces the subject to appear in a postverbal position (Gabriel 2007, Mensching and Remberger 2010), whereas other varieties do not have this constraint, e.g. Modern Standard Italian (e.g. Rizzi 1997). 6 See Benincà (2004) for a semantic and pragmatic explanation and some interesting generalizations concerning the presence of the clitic in Old Romance. 7 The small clause analysis of auxiliaries is based on Kayne (1985) and Brucart (1991), who assume this, however, for modern stages of French and Spanish.

Parameters in Old Romance word order

27

b. Simplified structure adapted from Batllori (1992: 102):

V V fue

AspP PP en esto

AspP Spec el mur

Asp' Asp0 engañado

SC ti tj tk

Both the participle and the subject move to an Aspect Phrase situated between V and SC; another constituent (in this case the PP en esto) is adjoined to AspP to the left of its specifier. It is furthermore assumed that the auxiliaries (with the exception of passive ser) were later grammaticalized and are now base generated in Aspect heads that subcategorize VPs. Although this analysis contains a series of weak points,8 the basic intuition that, in Old Romance, an extra position was available in the lower part of the sentence, is essentially a good solution, which was adopted in various more recent studies. The theoretical enhancements of the nineteen nineties provided several possible answers as to the location and the nature of this extra position. Thus, in Mensching (2003), I suggested that this position could be an outer specifier9 of vP, which was accessible to XPs in Old Romance varieties due to an [EPP]-feature on v. Since this idea will be elaborated on in section 2.3, I immediately turn to an interesting alternative proposal, which was made within the cartographic framework. Inspired by Rizzi’s (1997) idea of a series of functional categories in the left periphery of clauses, Belletti (2004) postulated a second, low left periphery above vP:

(9) [… TopP [FocP [TopP … [ TP … [TopP [FocP [TopP … vP]]]]]]]

high left periphery

low left periphery

8 It is not clear to me from a semantic point of view why participles should incorporate into AspP. Also note that, if passive ser maintained the basic structure assumed, the Aux-XP-Part order would still be possible, contrary to fact. 9 For multiple specifiers, see Chomsky (1995).

28

Guido Mensching

Poletto (2005 et seq.) exploits this idea for data such as those in (2) and (8), i.e. she assumes that the landing site of Old Italian SDS is within the low left periphery. She furthermore assumes that not only T and v have a left periphery but that this might be a property of phase heads in general, an idea that can be visualized as follows:10 (10)

Generalized model of a phase with left periphery, according to Poletto (2008)

FRAME

left periphery of the phase

THEME FOCUS XP Spec

X' X0

phase head

YP phase domain

Based on a corpus analysis of Old Italian, Poletto (2008) was able to show that both the XP-V-S structure and the Aux-XP-Part. structure ceased to exist in the sixteenth century. Her main proposal is that the existence of these two structures in medieval Italian follows from the same phase-based parameter: a head such as Foc0 is either strong or weak in a language X (strong meaning that it attracts an XP to its head, similar to Chomsky’s (1995) system of feature checking). The strength of this head is the same, regardless of the phase in which it is merged. This predicts that a language that has structures as in (1) also has structures as in (2). Although an exact corpus analysis will still have to be made, it seems possible that this prediction is borne out for most Old Romance languages. The problem is that all this is shown for focused XPs only, so that topical XPs as in (1a.,b.), which often trigger V-S inversion, as we have seen, remain unexplained. In addition, the Old 10 This is a simplified representation based on Benincà’s and Poletto’s (2004) elaboration of Rizzi’s (1997) split CP: [Hanging Topic [Scene Setting [Left Dislocation [List Interpretation [[Contrastive CP1 adverbs/objects [Contrastive CP2 circum adverb [Informational CP . . . ]]]]]]]].

Parameters in Old Romance word order

29

Italian left peripheral focus position is supposed to represent information focus, differently from most modern varieties in which essentially only a contrastive focus reading is possible. Of course, the question arises of why a ‘strong’ contrastive focus head in Modern Romance does not predict structures of the type Aux-XP-Part., where XP would also have a contrastive reading.11

2.3 Analysis 2.3.1 Relating XP-V-S and Aux-XP-Part. word orders The aim of this section is to try to apply a non-cartographic approach that works with CFCs. The basis is the analysis of XP-V-S structures as in (6), where XP movement leads to Spec,IP, i.e. Spec,TP from a more modern view, thus forcing the subject to remain in its base position. In a minimalist interpretation, the example in (1a.), repeated here as (11a.), will then have the structure shown in (11b.): (11)

a. E esto fiz yo porque tomases ejiemplo. and this did-1sg. I because took-subj.2sg. example ‘And I did this for you to have an example’ b.

OS

TP D esto

T' T0 [EPP] [HAF]

fiz

vP D yo

v' v

VP

[HAF]

fiz

esto fiz

11 Furthermore, it is not clear to me whether all constituents that appear in the low position in Poletto’s data are really focused constituents. Cf. (i), in which il maleficio, according to the context in the relevant passage, rather appears to me as known/given information:

(i) ch’ egli avea il maleficio commesso OI that he had the crime committed ‘that he had committed the crime’ (Fiore di rett. 31,12–13; cf. Poletto 2008: 137).

30

Guido Mensching

As standardly assumed, T0 has an [EPP]-feature and a kind of strong feature that attracts the verb (head attraction feature ([HAF]),12 cf. Pomino 2008). In contrast to Modern Romance, we must assume that a non-subject XP could check the [EPP]-feature in Old Romance T0, as illustrated in (11). But note that this idea seems rather problematic at first sight: first, why should the [EPP]-feature in T0 be able to attract a direct object in Old Romance but not today? It would probably not be desirable in the Minimalist Program to specify something like a ‘subject related’ [EPP]-feature for the modern stages and a ‘general’ [EPP]-feature in the old stages of Romance. Second, in the tree structure in (11b.), the subject is nearer to T0 than the object, which would predict that the subject and not the object would be chosen for [EPP]-driven movement. The solution I would like to suggest is to say that the possibility of a non-subject constituent checking the [EPP]-feature of T is theoretically possible only if the moved constituent has an intermediate landing site in the lower part of the tree structure. Let us look at (12):

(12)

TP Spec

T' T0 [EPP] [HAF]

vP

fiz D esto

v' D yo

v' v

Possible targets of the [EPP]-feature in T0 due to equidistance

[EPP] [HAF]

fiz

VP fiz esto

Here, the complement of V is first attracted to an outer specifier of vP, a step made possible by an [EPP]-feature on v0. In this position, both the complement and the subject will be equidistant from T0 (for equidistance see, among others, Ura 1996 and Chomsky 2000), so that either of the two constituents will be eligible for 12 Similar to Chomsky (1995), but against Chomsky (2000 et seq.), who takes verb movement to be a PF phenomenon. With respect to Old Romance, in Mensching (2003), I assumed that the [HAF] was optional in Old Romance, so that verb-final clauses could be produced. In our example, this would yield a sentence such Esto yo fiz. I shall not explore this option here.

Parameters in Old Romance word order

31

movement to Spec,TP. Within phase theory, this intermediate movement would ensure that esto evades the phase impenetrability condition (PIC); in fact, movement to Spec,vP is seen as a standard device in the probe-goal framework. There are some complications to which we will return in section 2.4. While the structure in (12) follows from purely theoretical considerations, I assume that the intermediate landing site in Spec,vP can be shown to exist, and that it is precisely the position of the XP in the Aux-XP-Part. structures; cf. example (13a.), repeated from (2a.), and the analysis in (13b.):13 (13)

a. porque ella non avia las cartas resçebidas OS because she not had-3sg. the letters-f.pl. received-part.-f.pl. ‘because she had not received the letters’ b.

vP v'

DP

v'

las cartas DP v [HAF] [EPP] resçebidas

ella

VP

las cartas resçebidas

13 The outer specifier of vP was not only accessible to direct objects, but to other constituents as well, e.g. indirect objects as in (2b.). (2c.) is an example of a constituent that has moved from a VP internal adjunct position, and, in my theory, is able to check the [EPP]-feature. From its position in vP, this kind of constituent, too, could be attracted to Spec,TP, as (1c.) shows. An anonymous reviewer suggests that this view might imply a danger of intervention effects, e.g. between an adjunct and an object (i.e. could not the occurrence of an adjunct block movement of an object to Spec,vP or vice versa?). Concerning the data, this kind of intervention effects does not seem to exist, as can be shown by examples with two extracted constituents between Aux and Part., e.g.:

(i) Commo Auje el Regno A su yerno mandado OS how had-3sg. the kingdom to his son-in-law conferred-part. ‘how he had conferred the Kingdom to his son in law’ (Libro de Apolonio, quoted in Mensching and Savelsberg 2009) In the present framework, the explanation lies in the fact that the [EPP]-features at issue are not linked to f-probes (which would be expected to yield intervention effects). See section 2.4 for a hypothesis on the nature of these probes. Evidently, for explaining examples such as (i), v0 must be allowed to have more than one [EPP]-feature, a possibility that follows from the multiple specifier hypothesis but cannot be explored in this chapter.

32

Guido Mensching

Here, the subject (ella) is attracted to Spec,TP in a subsequent step, but because of the equidistance principle, it could also have been the object, thus leading to a variant las cartas había ella resçebidas. In fact, structures of this type can be found in the data. See the following examples, in which it is the subject that remains between Aux and the participle when a non-subject XP is fronted (subject in Spec, vP): (14)

a. quando el aver ovo el burgés recibido when the possessions had-3sg. the burgher received-part. ‘when the burgher had received the money’ (Milagros, v. 654a; cf. Batllori, Sánchez, and Suñer 1995: 203)

OS

Josep vendido en Egipto. OS b. Aqui fue here was-3sg. Joseph sold-part. in Egypt ‘In this passage Joseph was sold in Egypt’ (Faz. 52; cf. Batllori 1992: 100) c. Un pou aprés eure de prime fu Mador venuz OF a bit after hour of first was-3sg. M. arrived-part. ‘And shortly after the first hour M. had arrived (La Mort Artu p. 103; cf. Benincà 2004: 262) d. perciò che primieramente avea ella fatta OI therefore that firstly had-3sg. she done-part. a llui ingiuria to him injustice ‘because she had first done injustice to him’ (Brunetto Latini, Rettorica: 116, 15; cf. Poletto 2008: 133) In example (8a.), repeated below as (15), the subject appears beneath the scrambled non-subject constituent: (15) et fue en esto el mur engañado and was in this the mouse misled-part. ‘and the mouse was misled by this’ (Cal. 349; cf. Batllori 1992: 101)

OS

If we adopt the view that unaccusative and passive predicates have a vP, to the (inner) specifier of which the theme of the verb is attracted (Radford 2004, Kallulli 2007, among others), this example can be analysed as follows, in accordance with my theory:

Parameters in Old Romance word order (16)

33

Revision of Batllori’s (1992) analysis in (8b.) (section 2.2): TP

D proexp1

T' T0 fue

vP PP en esto

v' Spec el mur

v' v0 engañado

VP

engañado el mur en esto

Note that this analysis presupposes, against Batllori (1992), that passive ser (as well as haber and possibly estar) already were auxiliaries (generated in T0) in Old Romance. We will return to this issue at the end of section 2.4. 2.3.2 Further evidence in support of the analysis There are two further points that can support the analysis that I have just sketched. The first one is related to participle fronting already introduced in (3) and further exemplified in (17): (17)

a. Ya entendido he agora esto. OS already understood-part. have-1sg. now this ‘I have already understood this now’ (Cal. 305; cf. Batllori 1992: 106) b. Ya llegado ha tu fazienda a tal lugar. OS already come-part. has your deed to such place ‘Your deed has already reached such a point’ (Cal. 188; cf. Batllori 1992: 106) c. Ca ciertamente, si éstas son vacas, perdido he OS since really if these are-3pl. cows, lost-part. have-1sg. yo el entendimiento. I the reason ‘Really, if these are cows, I must have lost my mind’ (Lucan. 176; cf. Fontana 1993: 80)

34

Guido Mensching

It is not the participle itself and its special position that are of interest here,14 but an implication that follows from the analysis that I shall suggest for these constructions. I therefore first present the analysis and then return to its relevance for our argument. Since the participle is not always fronted alone (cf. (17a.,b.), where it is accompanied by an adverb), Batllori (1992) argues that participle movement should, in fact, be interpreted as XP movement and not as head movement. However, as remarked by Batllori (1992: 106, fn. 4) ‘it is difficult to sustain this because esto “this” in [17a.] and a tal lugar “to such a point” in [17b.] are objects of their respective participles.’ Of course, in order to maintain an analysis as XP movement, we have to envisage a remnant movement approach similar to the standard approach for German, according to which the structure of the (grammatical) word-by-word translation of the Old Spanish sentence in (17c.) would be as in (18):15 (18) [CP[VP tj Verloren]i habe [IP ich [DP den Verstand]j ti]] It is commonly assumed for German that, in a case like (18), the direct object or another constituent is moved to some position below the Spec,IP position, and afterwards the VP remnant is moved to the CP. It might be objected to applying such an analysis to Old Romance that this possibility has already been examined and rejected by Fontana (1993: 75–84). Fontana arrived at the conclusion that his corpus contained only ‘examples [ . . . ] where all the constituents associated with the VP are fronted with the non-finite form’ (Fontana 1993: 84) and that ‘none of them provides evidence that VP material can be stranded after the tensed verb’ (Fontana 1993: 81). But note that the examples he provides are all cases of infinitive fronting16 and not of participle fronting. However, for participle fronting, examples such as (17a.,b.) can be found.17 I therefore maintain the idea that participle fronting is remnant movement, at least in Old Ibero-Romance, admitting that infinitive fronting may be subject to another analysis, which is, however, beyond the scope of this chapter.18 14 Mainly because participle fronting seems to be a special case of focus fronting, and the present article, as I stated in the beginning, is mainly concerned with fronted constituents that are topics. For the focus properties of this construction, cf. Cruschina and Sitaridou (2009), as well as section 2.4. 15 Cf. the identical analysis of sentence (i) in Müller (1998: 6):

(i) Gelesen hat das Buch keiner. read-part. has the book nobody ‘Nobody read the book’ 16

German

Such as (i):

(i) que ninguno [fazer plaser a Dios] non puede OS that nobody make-inf. pleasure to God not can-3sg. ‘since nobody can please God’ (Corbacho 47, quoted in Fontana 1993: 81 according to Lema and Rivero 1991) Fontana admits that (i) might be due to VP fronting, but, since he did not find examples of the type que ninguno [fazer plaser] non puede [a Dios], he thinks that, in Old Spanish, either the whole VP could move or the non-finite verb could move alone. For him, ex. (17c.) would be of the latter type. 17 I follow Batllori (1992) in assuming that, in these examples, ya has moved along with the participle. 18 With respect to the Aux-XP-V order, the same kind of examples can be found both with infinitives and with participles; cf. Poletto (2008: 137–38). These infinitive constructions usually involve modal verbs

Parameters in Old Romance word order

35

Now, to return to the argument of this chapter, it has been proposed (e.g. by Thiersch 1985 and den Besten and Webelhuth 1987) with respect to German structures as those in (18) that German allows (remnant VP) participle fronting precisely because it has a scrambling position available somewhere in the lower part of the clause. The other way around, they argue that a language such as English (and we may add the Modern Romance languages) cannot have participle fronting of the German type precisely because the scrambling position is unavailable. In the words of Gereon Müller (1998: 6), under this approach, VP topicalization [ . . . ] is necessarily preceded by a scrambling operation that moves [material] out of the VP. Clearly, one can predict that if a language does not exhibit scrambling, it will not exhibit remnant VP topicalization of this type either. English, in contrast to German, does not exhibit scrambling, and therefore the absence of constructions like those in [18] is explained straightforwardly.

On the same basis, we can now say that the possibility of Old Romance to allow participle fronting (which I take to be of the German type) follows from the possibility of these linguistic varieties to move material to an outer specifier of vP, an option that I have shown to have existed in section 2.3.1. Let us therefore assume that the sentence in (17a.) has the structure in (19): (19)

TP VP T'

Ya entendido esto

T0 [EPP] [HAF] he

vP Adv agora

vP D esto

v' Spec pro

v' v0 [EPP]

VP

∅

and not auxiliaries in a strict sense (be/have). A decision on whether they allow for the same explanation as the one I suggest for Aux-XP-Part. in section 2.3.1 depends on the analysis of modal verbs.

36

Guido Mensching

Note that, in principle, the idea that the scrambled object sits in an outer specifier of vP is compatible with the occurrence of the adverb agora to its left, if we assume that agora is adjoined to the maximal projection of v0.19 Nevertheless, there are at least two problems with this analysis:20 first, we have to explain the paradoxical fact that the VP itself performs a long movement without passing through the scrambling position or we have to admit that there is more than one external specifier in vP;21 second, the word order subject–direct object in example (17c.) is not predicted by my analysis. I shall postpone the discussion to section 2.4, where we will see how both problems can be resolved. A second piece of evidence is related to modern clitic left dislocation structures. Note that, from the point of view of information structure, esto in (1a.), here partially repeated as (20a.), has to be regarded as a topic.22 In Modern Spanish, this structure would be ungrammatical with a topic reading of esto, and, instead, a CLLD structure would have to be used, as exemplified in (20b.): (20)

yo. a. Esto fiz this did-1sg. I ‘This is what I did’ hice yo b. Esto lo this it-cl. did-1sg. I ‘This is what I did’

OS

b.’ Esto yo lo hice. this I it-cl. did-1sg. ‘This is what I did’

MS

The question is why CLLD should be obligatory in Modern Spanish but not in Old Spanish.23 As hypothesized in section 2.3.1, Old Romance v0 possessed an optional [EPP]-feature that allowed for a constituent to pass to the edge of vP. I have also argued that this movement is a necessary step for the subsequent movement to Spec,TP. From a diachronic perspective, my argumentation implies that, at some stage, v0 lost the option of an [EPP]-feature, so that both the Aux-XPPart. and the XP-V-S structures would be barred. Now, if we look at modern CLLD, one explanation that we find in the literature (e.g. in Sportiche 1992) is that

19

If this analysis is correct, the adverb ya must be supposed to be adjoined to VP. A further problem is that this analysis implies that participle movement is remnant VP (not vP) movement. We therefore have to admit the possibility that the participle does not move to v0. Luis López (personal communication), observes that it might well be that participles do not actualy move to v0, considering data with participles occurring in isolation. 21 See note 13 for this option. 22 In the context of this example, esto refers to the story just told. 23 CLLD was already an option in the Middle Ages. The question of whether there was an interpretative difference between topicalization with and without clitic resumption must be left for future research. According to Benincà (2004), the clitic served to make the fronted constituent pragmatically identifiable as a topic in case of the ambiguity that could arise because of the fact that the focus and the topic structure had the same surface word order. 20

Parameters in Old Romance word order

37

in CLLD the object DP is in the Spec of a functional maximal projection, a Clitic Phrase, of which the clitic is the overt head. The Spec of Clitic Phrase is the target position of a movement, the source position is the canonical, VP-internal, object position (Agouraki 1992: 50).

Consider the following structure (adapted from Agouraki’s 1992: 51 Modern Greek example):

(21)

CP C0

CliticP DPj esto

Clitic' Clitic0 lo

IP I0 hicei

VP V'

DP yo

V0 ti

tj

The interesting point here is the idea that the clitic head provides an extra specifier position. Of course, the structure in (21) is not in conformity with modern insights on CLLD. In particular, as shown by Rizzi (1997), other constituents can intervene between the topicalized phrase and the clitic. Let us therefore assume that the basic insight of (21) is correct, but that the clitic is merged lower than TP. It would then provide a landing place from which the extracted XP can move on to the left periphery. In this view, the clitic would fulfil essentially the same task that the [EPP]-feature on v0 had in the earlier stages of the languages at issue.

2.4 Summary and outlook In the preceding sections I have tried to develop a theory that explains the fact that the medieval stages of several Romance languages allowed both for XP-V-S structures and for Aux-XP-Part. structures. I have tried to show that both properties can be modelled in a minimalist (CFC) approach, as an alternative to Poletto’s (2005ff) cartographic theory. In contrast to Poletto’s analysis, we have been concerned with left peripheral topics. In a CFC approach, these can be argued to have occupied

Guido Mensching

38

Spec,TP by means of checking T0’s [EPP]-feature. In order for this position to be accessible for movement from within vP, the relevant constituent had first to move to an outer specifier of vP, to the left of the subject. Since both specifiers of v0 are equidistant, either the subject or the non-subject constituent were able to move upwards. I have tried to show that the Aux-XP-Part. structure provides further evidence for the existence of this position within the vP. From a diachronic perspective, Old Romance topicalization without a clitic and modern CLLD can be explained as follows: .

.

Old Romance: equidistance and/or escaping the phase edge was made possible by a generally available [EPP]-feature in v0. Modern Romance: Since the [EPP]-feature in v0 is no longer (generally) available, a clitic has to be merged, which introduces an [EPP]-feature into the derivation in order to provide an intermediate landing site.

As far as parametrization is concerned, the existence of an optional [EPP]-feature on v0 is compatible with the minimalist view that the locus of parameters is the lexicon (Chomsky 1995 et seq.), in the sense that parameters are determined by the diverging feature specifications of functional categories and their interaction during the derivation. Very roughly speaking, in such a framework, the ‘parametrization’ of Old versus Modern Romance with respect to the phenomena at issue here can be sketched as in (22): (22)

Functional categories T0 and v0 in Old and Modern Romance (rough approximation, cf. Mensching and Remberger 2011): a. Old Romance b. Modern Romance Ø: T0 þ fin. f-probe [EPP] ([HAF])

Ø: T0 þ fin. f-probe [EPP] [HAF]

Øv f-probe ([EPP]) [HAF]

Øv f-probe [HAF]

An issue that has not been addressed in this chapter is the question of how the information structural status of a constituent is established. One of the main points of the chapter has been the assumption that subjects and topicalized non-subject constituents share one and the same position (Spec,TP), thus causing V2 word order. This idea cannot easily be accommodated in a cartographic approach, in which topics need to land in dedicated Topic Phrases. I have therefore preferred a

Parameters in Old Romance word order

39

CFC account,24 but how can information structure be explained in such a framework? Without going much into this issue here, I briefly explore one possibility that is compatible with the lexical parametrization idea presented in the introduction. It is usually assumed that the [EPP]-feature in T is somehow linked to the finitenesscase system, i.e. it attracts an element that has been probed and assigned case by the phi-features on T.25 I assume that this is the case in the Modern Romance languages. It has been suggested in the literature (e.g. Brody 1995, Miyagawa 2005, Mensching and Remberger 2011, Giurgea and Remberger 2009, in press) that [EPP]-checking can—in principle—also be related to information structure. This can be modelled by linking the [EPP]-feature to an information structural feature or, rather, an information structural probe. If Spec,TP in Old Romance was essentially a position for topics, we could now restate the lexical parameter approach for T in (22) as in (23): (23) Parametrized linking of the [EPP]-feature:

OLD ROMANCE

a.

∅: T0 φ-probe

[Topic-probe] | [EPP] ([HAF])

MODERN ROMANCE b. ∅: T0 φ-probe [EPP] [HAF]

In Old Romance, the [EPP]-feature in T was linked to a Topic feature (or a corresponding probe), not to the f-probe (as in Modern Romance). Note that the ‘parametric settings’ of v0 remain as in (22) in the sense that we still need an optional [EPP]-feature on v0. While it is clear that this feature cannot be argued to be linked to the f-probe, the issue of whether it is free in the sense that it could attract any kind of XP or if it is linked to special information structural probes must be left open here, because this question is subject to a detailed analysis of the information structural status of the elements that can be found in the Aux-XP-Part. construction. I have not looked at focus fronting in the present article, but XPs in the XP-V-S structure certainly also allowed a focus reading, as shown, among others, by Benincà (2004) and Poletto (2005 et seq.). Examples such as (24), where the fronted constituent appears to bear some kind of focus, can easily be found in the medieval stages of most Romance languages. 24 While acknowledging the advantages of the cartographic framework, I think there are some other reasons that make an account within the probe-goal framework, as sketched in what follows, worthwhile considering. One of these is the fact that there is no possibility to assign an information structural role to a constituent without movement. Thus, in Romance SVO order, O is usually focalized. This can be expressed in the probe-goal approach by assuming an information structural probe without an [EPP]-feature. 25 Alternatively, the [EPP]-feature can be checked by expletives, which therefore seem also related to the case-finiteness system.

Guido Mensching

40 (24)

Mal cosselh donet Pilat. bad advice gave-3sg. Pilate ‘Pilate gave bad advice’ (Venjansa, 106; cf. Benincà 2004: 262)

OOc

Although these cases might be explained in the same way as the topic construction that I have examined in this chapter, I would not insist on this idea. As an alternative, it might be assumed that Old Romance focus fronting was movement to the CP domain, whereas topic fronting without a clitic led to the TP. In fact, this would solve the problems that I mentioned in section 2.3.2 with respect to the examples in (17), and in particular, to (17c.), repeated here as (25): (25)

Ca ciertamente, si éstas son vacas, perdido he since really if these are-3pl. cows, lost-part. have-1sg. yo el entendimiento. I the reason ‘Really, if these are cows, I must have lost my mind’.

OS

Since participle fronting must be interpreted as a kind of focus movement (cf. Cruschina and Sitaridou 2009 as well as Mensching and Remberger 2010), (25) could be explained as in (26): (26) [CP [VP perdido el entendimiento] [C0 he [TP yo … [el entendimiento] ... ]]]] V-to-C

scrambling

VP remnant movement (focalization)

The fact that both the VP remnant and the verb move to the CP explains that the subject (in Spec,TP) precedes the scrambled direct object (in Spec,vP).26 And, in addition, it seems probable that focus movement (i.e. operator movement), in

26 As an anonymous reviewer points out, my analysis would predict that the subject could remain in Spec,vP and, instead, the scrambled constituent moves to Spec,TP in order to become a topic. An example could be:

(i) Detto ha di sopra l’ Autore [ . . . ] OI said-part. has above the author ‘The author has said above’ (Ottimo, Purg., 8,120, retrieved in the OVI database) A quite interesting structure can be found in a Spanish text from the beginning of the sixteenth century: (ii) E dicho que ovo esto el enano OS and said-part. that had this the dwarf ‘And after the dwarf had said this’ (López de Santa Catalina, Espejo, ed. Pantoja: 74) Apart from the fact that CP recursion is needed to account for this example (see Fontana 1993: 163ff for CP recursion in Old Spanish), the word order beneath the complementizer is straightforward according to my analysis. It has to be admitted, though, that other examples can be found that show a topicalized constituent in the CP domain, above the fronted participle.

Parameters in Old Romance word order

41

contrast to topic movement, is able to perform long non-cyclic movement. Thus, in (26), the VP need not pass through the escape hatch in vP.27 I would like to conclude with a final note on grammaticalization. The reader will have noted the similarity of the tree structures in (8b.) and (16), repeated here as (27) and (28), i.e. Batllori’s (1992) and my own interpretation of the word order AuxXP-Part. (27)

Analysis within the framework of Batllori (1992)

V V fue

AspP PP en esto

AspP Spec el mur

Asp' Asp0 engañado

SC

el mur engañado en esto

(28)

My analysis from section 2.3.1 TP

D proexp1

T' T0 fue

vP PP en esto

v' Spec el mur

v' v0 engañado

VP

engañado el mur en esto

27 Similar to wh-movement, another case of operator movement. Alternatively, operator movement can somehow generate a free (i.e. not lexically selected) extra [EPP]-feature on v0 – see Chomsky (2001b et

42

Guido Mensching

I take (28) to be the correct representation, because it does not seem plausible to me that, in the documented stages of the Old Romance, the verbs corresponding to be and have were not yet grammaticalized. It seems plausible though that Vulgar Latin or Proto-Romance had structures similar to that in (27). If my analysis is correct, the Old Romance structures are the result of reanalyzing AspP as vP, and, accordingly, of V as T. It is to be expected that, in this reanalysis, the speakers took the former adjunct of AspP as evidence for an [EPP]-feature on v0, which can then have been generalized as a property of all instances of v0, i.e. not only those instances subcategorized by T with an auxiliary. This important step would then automatically have allowed the element extracted by virtue of this [EPP]-feature to move onwards to left clause periphery.

seq.) for an extensive discussion of these issues. In any case this idea predicts that types of focus movement still exist in Modern Romance, contrary to (non-clitic) topic movement (maybe with the exception of Modern Portuguese).

3 Microparameters in the verbal complex Middle High German and some modern varieties CHRISTOPHER D. SAPP

3.1 Introduction A salient characteristic of Modern Standard German (MSG) is its fixed word orders within the verbal complex (VC). In a subordinate clause with more than one verb, the verbs occur clause-finally and no constituents can intervene between them (thus the term ‘verbal complex’). In complexes of two verbs, MSG requires the order nonfinite verb before finite verb, hereafter called the ‘2-1 order’.1 The reverse order, 1-2, is not grammatical: (1)

a. . . . dass Klaus den Roman geschrieben hat. has1 that K. the novel written2 ‘ . . . that Klaus wrote the novel.’ b. * . . . dass Klaus den Roman hat geschrieben. that K. the novel has1 written2

MSG: 2-1

1-2

However, earlier stages of German and some contemporary dialects have more variable word order in the VC, as does standard Dutch. We can see this in Middle High German (MHG), where a two-verb complex can appear in three different orders. In the following MHG examples, all present perfects in relative clauses from a single text, we find the MSG-like 2-1 order (2a.), the 1-2 order, also known as ‘verb raising’ or VR (2b.), and a third order in which the verbs are in the 1-2 order but split by some constituent (2c.). The latter order has been called ‘verb projection raising’ (VPR), but I refer to it here as 1-x-2, where ‘x’ represents the non-verbal constituent. I label the finite verb ‘1’ and the non-finite verb (in this case, the lexical verb) ‘2’. The word-order possibilities for complexes of three or more verbs are much richer and will not be discussed here; however, they are treated at length in Sapp (2011). 1

44

Chris Sapp

(2) a. wi er daz volk verflvchet. daz got geſegent het. MHG: 2-1 how he the people cursed rel God blessed2 had1 ‘how he cursed the people whom God had blessed’ (B. Könige 04va) b. alle die den got gewalt uñ geriht hat verlihen. 1-2 (VR) all those rel God power and rule has1 granted2 ‘all those to whom God has granted power and rule’ (B. Könige 05ra) c. daz dv vnſ vergaebest swaz wir vbelſ heten an dir getan. 1-x-2 (VPR) that you us forgive rel we evil had1 to you done2 ‘that you forgive us whatever evil we had done to you’ (B. Könige 03va) The occurrence of the 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders in MHG has led previous scholars (e.g. Lehmann 1971) to propose that parametric change has occurred in the recorded history of German, from a tendency toward SVO in the Middle Ages to more consistent verb-final structure in the modern language. This hypothesis seems to be supported by the fact that VCs are not always clause final in MHG: there are numerous examples in which one or more constituents occur to the right of the verbs, and this is possible independently of the order within the VC: (3)

a. Do ioſeph gelebt het hvnd’t iar vn zehn iar when J. lived2 had1 100 years and 10 years ‘When Joseph had lived 110 years . . . ’(B. Könige 03vb)

clause-medial 2-1

b. alſ ſi wol verdinet hat an dem armen manne. clause-medial 1-2 as she well deserved2 has1 because the poor man ‘as she well deserved because of what she did to the poor man’ (B. K. 07vb) This chapter presents the results of a corpus study of MHG and data from some modern varieties of German. Based on these data, I argue that orders represented in (2b.,c.) and (3) are not evidence for VO, and that no change has occurred to the OV parameter throughout this history. Rather, word order in the VC varies across varieties and constructions and is sensitive to non-syntactic factors such as prosody, focus, and register. Therefore, I argue that although the OV parameter is unchanged, the changes in verb-complex order result from changes to a microparameter, at the periphery of the grammatical system. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.2 will present the data on the verbal complex in MHG. Section 3.3 treats the diachronic developments to MSG and some modern dialects, determining that there is no evidence for typological change in the history of German. In Section 3.4, I discuss the distinction between core and microparameters and account for synchronic variation and the diachronic developments in the VC in terms of microparametric change.

Microparameters in the verbal complex

45

3.2 The verbal complex in MHG 3.2.1 Corpus and method Middle High German is the stage of the language written approximately from 1050 to 1350. For my study of MHG, I compiled a database of 1,106 subordinate clauses that contain a finite verb and one non-finite verb. These clauses are taken from thirteen prose texts from the Bochumer Mittelhochdeutsch Korpus (Wegera et al.). Although the Bochum corpus has many more prose texts than this, this selection of texts attempts to represent one text from each century and dialect in the corpus. For more information on the texts used in the database, see Sapp (2011). Each clause in the database was coded for the following variables: verb order, syntagm type, constituent preceding the verbal complex, constituent following the verbal complex, focus type (new versus contrastive), focused constituent, prefix type, and verb second. Each text in the database was tagged for century, dialect, and genre.2 The analyses were conducted using the statistics package GoldVarb X (Sankoff et al. 2005), which allows the researcher to determine the extent of the effect of several independent variables (linguistic and sociolinguistic factors) on a dependent variable (in this study, verb order). The key statistical output of GoldVarb utilized in this study is the ‘factor weight’, which indicates the strength of the effect of a given factor on the dependent variable. The factor weight is expressed as a probability between 0 and 1; the further it is from 0.5, which indicates no effect, the greater that factor’s effect on the dependent variable. In the MHG database, 317 of the 1,109 clauses (i.e. 28.7%) are in the 1-2 order.3 Thus if the 1-2 order occurs more frequently than 28.7% with a given variable, the factor weight should be greater than 0.5, indicating a favouring effect on 1-2. 3.2.2 Effect of syntagm As shown in (2), a given syntagm can appear in either the 2-1 or the 1-2 order; however, some syntagms favour a particular order. As in many West Germanic varieties, including Modern Standard Dutch, syntagms with an infinitive favour the 1-2 order: as seen in Table 3.1, the modal-infinitive syntagm favours it at 35.5% and other syntagms favour it even more strongly at 74.1%. On the other hand, the perfect tenses have 1-2 at roughly 29%, close to the expected rate, while both kinds of passive disfavour 1-2 at 17.1% and 9.9% respectively. 2 Other variables were also coded but play no role in this chapter; see Sapp (2011) for a discussion of these additional factors. 3 Note that throughout section 3.2, ‘1-2’ includes all clauses where the finite verb precedes the non-finite verb, i.e. it subsumes clauses with an intervening constituent or 1-x-2 (2c.) with the simpler cases of 1-2 (2b.).

46

Chris Sapp

TABLE 3.1. Syntagm Syntagm

2-1

1-2

future 0 (0%) 6 (100%) other V þ inf. (causative, ACI) 7 (25.9%) 20 (74.1%) modal þ inf. 272 (64.5%) 150 (35.5%) perfect with haben 181 (70.7%) 75 (29.3%) perfect with sein 52 (71.2%) 21 (28.8%) werden passive 145 (82.9%) 30 (17.1%) progressive 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) sein passive 127 (90.1%) 14 (9.9%) Total 789 (71.3%) 317 (28.7%) p < 0.001

Factor weight n/a 0.887 0.602 0.532 0.526 0.362 0.355 0.233

The hierarchy of favourable syntagms for the 1-2 order (modal > perfect > passive) also holds in other studies of MHG (Prell 2001), as well as studies of Early New High German (ENHG) by Ebert (1981) and Sapp (2011). 3.2.3 Prefix type MHG verbs may have a stressed prefix, also known as a verbal particle (4a.), or an unstressed prefix (4b.): (4)

a. daz ím Ionathaſ waz ab gegange~. that him Jonathan was1 away-gone2 ‘that J. had departed him’

stressed prefix

b. daz rel

unstressed prefix (cf. (2a.) above)

got God

geſegent blessed2

het had1

(B. Könige 12rb)

As in Prell (2001), Ebert (1981), and Sapp (2011), in my MHG database the type of verbal prefix has an effect on word order. As seen in Table 3.2, verbs with a stressed prefix or no prefix favour the 1-2 order at 40.4% and 38.1%, respectively, while verbs with unstressed prefixes favour the 2-1 order. This effect of prefix type on verb order is in part because of an interaction with syntagm, as most participles have the unstressed prefix ge-, and participles were shown in the previous section to favour 2-1. However, Sapp (2011) demonstrates that while there is a great deal of overlap between these two factors, within each major syntagm type (those with infinitives and those with participles), verbs with stressed prefixes favour 1-2 more strongly than those with unstressed prefixes. 3.2.4 Effect of word preceding the verbal complex As in Ebert’s (1981) study of ENHG, in MHG there is an effect of the type of word that precedes the VC. As shown in Table 3.3, preceding non-pronominal NPs,

Microparameters in the verbal complex

47

TABLE 3.2. Prefix type Prefix type

2-1

1-2

Factor weight

stressed no prefix unstressed Total p < 0.001

31 (59.6%) 203 (61.9%) 555 (76.4%) 789 (71.3%)

21 (40.4%) 125 (38.1%) 171 (23.6%) 317 (28.7%)

0.620 0.547 0.470

TABLE 3.3. Class of preceding word Preceding word adjective noun quantified NP clause (infinitival or finite) prepositional phrase adverb stranded preposition pronoun nothing precedes Total p < 0.001

2-1

1-2

Factor weight

15 (53.6%) 185 (63.6%) 27 (64.3%) 2 (66.6%) 170 (74.2%) 162 (76.8%) 7 (77.8%) 202 (78.0%) 18 (64.3%) 788 (71.6%)

13 (46.4%) 106 (36.4%) 15 (35.7%) 1 (33.3%) 59 (25.8%) 49 (23.2%) 2 (22.2%) 57 (22.0%) 10 (35.7%) 312 (28.4%)

0.688 0.593 0.586 0.560 0.469 0.435 0.421 0.418 0.586

illustrated in (5a.), favour the 1-2 order at 36.4%, and quantified NPs favour that order at a similar rate.4 On the other hand, when a pronoun immediately precedes the verbs as in (5b.), the 2-1 order is favoured. (5)

a. den got rel God

gewalt power

uñ and

b. daz ich dir ſagen that I you say2 ‘that I shall say to you’

geriht rule ſol shall1

hat verlihen. has1 granted2

non-pron. NP (cf. (2b.) above) pronoun (B. Könige 08va)

Ebert (1981) maintains that this is because of the heavier stress of nouns versus pronouns, such that a stressed NP will be followed by the unstressed finite verb (thus 1-2), while an unstressed pronoun will be followed by the heavier non-finite verb (thus 2-1). To test this hypothesis, I recoded the data by the weight of the preceding word. Table 3.4 shows that other stressed constituents such as adjectives and PPs 4 The total for this table is lower because the analysis excludes six cases where the preceding ‘word’ was a verbal prefix.

48

Chris Sapp

TABLE 3.4. Stress of preceding word Preceding word

2-1

1-2

stressed (nouns, adj., PP) 420 (66.0%) 216 (34.0%) unstressed (pron., neg., adv.) 351 (79.4%) 91 (20.6%) Total 771 (71.5%) 307 (28.7%) p < 0.001

Factor weight 0.570 0.401

TABLE 3.5. Focus type Focus type contrastive focus new information focus old information Total p < 0.001

2-1

1-2

Factor weight

49 (69.0%) 490 (66.3%) 250 (84.5%) 789 (71.3%)

22 (31.0%) 249 (33.7%) 46 (15.5%) 317 (28.7%)

0.539 0.569 0.324

pattern with non-pronominal NPs in favouring the 1-2 order, which occurs 34% of the time following these constituents.5 Conversely, typically unstressed words such as adverbs, the negator, and pronouns favour the 2-1 order. Both ways of analyzing the effect of the preceding constituent are extremely significant; however, the analysis of its effect in terms of word stress resulted in a better model fit than the analysis by part of speech.6 This confirms Ebert’s (1981) hypothesis that the primary influence of the word preceding the VC is its phonological weight. 3.2.5 Focus Focus was tagged in the database in two ways. First, each clause in the database was examined within its section in order to determine whether there is contrast with something preceding in the discourse, whether some elements of the clause present new information to the discourse, or whether the clause represents only old information. The results of this are presented in Table 3.5, which shows that clauses with contrastive or new-information focus favour the 1-2 order at 31% and 33.7%. Clauses with only discourse-old information, however, favour the 2-1 order. Second, clauses in the database were tagged for the constituent that is focused (combining contrastive focus with new information): possibilities are focus on the 5

The totals for this table are lower because the analysis excludes cases where no word precedes the verbal complex. 6 The model fit for a combination of factor groups is output by GoldVarb as the log likelihood, which was better for the analysis in Table 3.4 (  480.682) than for the one in Table 3.3 (  484.571).

Microparameters in the verbal complex

49

TABLE 3.6. Focused constituent Focused constituent object focus clausal focus VP focus focus on a different constituent verb focus subject focus nothing focused (old information) Total p < 0.001

2-1

1-2

Factor weight

34 (49.3%) 71 (61.7%) 158 (65.6%) 74 (67.3%) 185 (73.4%) 17 (73.9%) 250 (84.5%) 789 (71.3%)

35 (50.7%) 44 (38.3%) 83 (34.4%) 36 (32.7%) 67 (26.6%) 6 (26.1%) 46 (15.5%) 317 (28.7%)

0.684 0.566 0.525 0.506 0.433 0.426 0.470

entire clause (6a.), the subject, the object (6b.), the verb, the VP (6c.), or some other constituent. (6)

daz di ſvgínden kínt durch vnſirs that the nursing children for our worden irſlagín] were1 killed2 ‘that the infants were killed because of our Lord’

a. [Foc

b. die [Foc ſinin willin ] rel his will ‘who had done his will’

heton had1

(Mitteld. Pr. a1ra) focus on object

getan. done2

muzit c. daz ír [Foc ſín’ gutdete that you his good.deeds might1 ‘that you might enjoy his good deeds’

h’ren willen Lord’s sake clause focus

(Zürich Pr. 109rb) genízen ]. enjoy2

focus on VP (Mitteld. Pr. a1ra)

As seen in Table 3.6, the most favourable focus condition for the 1-2 order is object focus, with more than 50% of such clauses appearing in the 1-2 order. Focus on the whole clause also favours 1-2, although this is less strong at 38.3%, and focus on the VP or on a different constituent appear to slightly favour the 1-2 order as well. The other kinds of focus have a disfavouring effect on the 1-2 order, as does old information. It is not entirely clear that the influence of focus on word order seen here is because of information structure per se or due to its effect on prosody. Note that in the three focus conditions that most strongly favour the 1-2 order in MHG, sentential stress will fall on the object in Modern German: (7) a. What did Klaus read? Ich glaube, dass Klaus [Foc das BUCH ] gelesen hat. MSG: object focus I believe that Klaus the book read2 has1 ‘I think that Klaus read the book’

50

Chris Sapp b. What did Klaus do? Ich glaube, dass Klaus [Foc das BUCH gelesen ] hat.

VP focus

c. What happened? Ich glaube, dass [Foc Klaus das BUCH gelesen hat ].

clausal focus

Assuming that sentential stress was similar in MHG, this could account for the favouring effect of these three focus conditions on the 1-2 order. In these three contexts, the object is stressed, and recall from the previous section that a stressed word preceding the VC favours 1-2. Thus the 1-2 order may fall out from the more general prosodic preference for alternating stressed and unstressed words. 3.2.6 Extraposition As mentioned in section 3.1 above, the VC in MHG subordinate clauses is not always clause-final. Rather, one or more constituents can follow the verbal complex, i.e. be extraposed. This is possible with both the 1-2 and 2-1 orders, as illustrated above in (3); however, previous studies (Prell 2001, Ebert 1981, and Sapp 2011) found a correlation between extraposition and the 1-2 order. My MHG data show this correlation too: as seen in Table 3.7, clauses with extraposition of an argument favour the 1-2 order, which occurs 44.4% of the time in those clauses. Conversely, clauses with no extraposition (i.e. when the VC is clause final) slightly disfavour the 1-2 order. In her study of ENHG extraposition, Bies (1996) finds that extraposed NPs tend to be either heavy or focused. Heaviness certainly plays a role in MHG extraposition as well: in another study, I find that the heavier a constituent is, the more likely it is to extrapose (Sapp in prep.). In addition to heaviness, focus has a clear effect on extraposition in MHG: in the database, there are thirty-nine instances of extraposed NPs that are focused, as in (8), but only two examples of extraposed NPs that are not focused. (8) (daz iſt div bihte.) di wir tun ſuln [Foc unſern priſtern.] focused NP that is the confession rel we do2 should1 our priests ‘(That is the confession) that we should make to our priests’ (Mitteld. b4vb)

TABLE 3.7. Extraposition Extraposed constituent

2-1

1-2

extraposed argument NP/PP 35 (55.6%) 28 (44.4%) extraposed adjunct PP 108 (69.7%) 47 (30.3%) nothing extraposed 602 (73.4%) 218 (26.6%) Total 745 (71.8%) 293 (28.2%) p ¼ 0.011

Factor weight 0.671 0.527 0.481

Microparameters in the verbal complex

51

As in the previous section, it is unclear whether the association of this word order with focus is syntactic in nature, or results from some prosodic preference. A third possibility, that sentences like (8) are evidence for underlying VO in MHG, will be considered in section 3.3. 3.2.7 Variation in MHG Word order within the VC is not only subject to the linguistic factors discussed above, but also to a great deal of variation from text to text. Some of this may be because of dialectal differences; however, because some dialects are represented by only one text in my database, it is difficult to determine whether this variation is a result of dialect or some other factor. Ebert (1981) finds differences in word order across social group in early-modern Nuremberg, but in my MHG database most of the texts with known authors were written by priests, making it impossible to identify occupation as a factor for word order variation. The one sociolinguistic factor that can be identified as significant is the genre of the text, as three text types are fairly well represented in the database: there are three chancery documents, five sermons, and four other religious texts. A fourth genre, chronicle, is only represented in the database by one text and will not be discussed further. Table 3.8 shows a clear distinction between chancery documents, which have the 1-2 order quite infrequently at 9.8%, and sermons, with a relatively high rate of 1-2 at 37.4%. Religious texts other than sermons occupy an intermediate position, with a frequency of the 1-2 order close to the total rate. This represents a hierarchy of formality, from official documents of city chanceries, to religious texts of a primarily didactic nature intended for reading, to sermons intended for oral delivery. Clearly, genre plays an important role in the choice of word orders in the VC in MHG, as it does in Ebert’s ENHG study. This hints at the possibility that other sociolinguistic factors may be in play that cannot be detected because of the limitations of the corpus.

TABLE 3.8. Genre Genre chancery documents religious texts (except sermons) sermons chronicle Total p < 0.001

2-1

1-2

Factor weight

240 (90.2%) 231 (70.6%) 271 (62.6%) 47 (58.8%) 789 (71.3%)

26 (9.8%) 96 (29.4%) 162 (37.4%) 33 (41.2%) 317 (28.7%)

0.406 0.433 0.557 0.754

52

Chris Sapp

3.3 From MHG to Modern German 3.3.1 Decline of the 1-2 order As mentioned in section 3.1 above, the 1-2 order, which was so frequently attested in MHG, has become ungrammatical by MSG. However, this decline is not manifested in the MHG database but only becomes apparent in the ENHG period. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the two word-order possibilities in the VC from the eleventh until the sixteenth centuries. The data for the first three time periods are from the MHG database discussed in this chapter, and the data for the last three periods is from a similar study of ENHG (Sapp 2011). From the eleventh until the fourteenth century, the 1-2 order is fairly stable, ranging from 32.2% to 35.5%, except for a dip in the twelfth century (to 16.2%) that is probably the result of the choice of texts for that period. In the fifteenth century, the 1-2 order declines rapidly to 15.7% and falls to just 8.5% by the sixteenth century, setting the stage for it to become obsolete in the modern language. Based on his studies of texts from early-modern Nuremberg, Ebert (1981, 1998) argues that the decline of the 1-2 order was a prescriptive ‘change from above’ that began in the formal written language and was eventually codified as the norm. Ebert’s hypothesis is supported by my data from MHG, as the most formal genre has the lowest rate of 1-2, and by data from my ENHG database (see Sapp 2011). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1070– 1100

1150– 1250– 1350– 1450– 1200 1300 1400 1500 2–1 order 1–2 order

FIGURE 3.1 Rate of 2-1 and 1-2 orders over time.

1550– 1600

Microparameters in the verbal complex

53

TABLE 3.9. Verbal-complex orders in modern varieties Variety

modal-infinitive

auxiliary-participle

Standard German S and W Austria N Austria E Austria Bavarian Swabian Alsatian Swiss

2-1 1-2 / (2-1) 2-1 2-1 2-1 / (1-2) 2-1 2-1 / (1-2) 1-2 / (2-1)

2-1 1-2 / 2-1 2-1 1-2 / 2-1 2-1 / (1-2) 2-1 / (1-2) 2-1 2-1 / (1-2)

Although standard German does not allow the 1-2 order, many contemporary dialects of German are reported to do so. The data in Table 3.9, collected from several older studies of individual dialects, are discussed in detail in Sapp (2011) and imply widespread occurrence of the 1-2 order in the south of the German-speaking region. However, recent questionnaires by Wurmbrand (2004b) and Sapp (2011) have found very little acceptance of the 1-2 order among dialect speakers in those parts of Germany and Austria. Thus it may be the case that many contemporary dialects, while maintaining traditional lexemes, phonology, and morphology, have given up some word-order variation in favour of the prescribed order of standard German. The one exception to this tendency is Swiss German, which, according to Wurmbrand (2004b), Lötscher (1978), and others, continues to allow the 1-2 order alongside the standard-like 2-1, especially with modal verbs. In order to test to what extent Swiss German continues to allow 1-2, I conducted a survey of twenty-three speakers of Zurich German (for details see Sapp 2011). As reported by Lötscher (1978), the 1-2 order is not accepted in the perfect tenses. However, somewhat contra Lötscher, who finds the 1-2 order to be preferred in the modal-infinitive construction, I find that speakers prefer 2-1 in this context, although the alternate order is acceptable as well. Finally, focus or prosody appears to play a role in the choice of word orders, with the 1-2 order more acceptable under object or VP focus than other focus conditions.7 Thus word order in the Zurich German VC shares with MHG the properties of being sensitive to syntagm and focus. However, unlike MHG, extraposition is very limited in Swiss German and so is no longer correlated to the order in the VC. In short, Zurich German represents an intermediate position between MHG and the modern, non-Swiss varieties (including the standard language), preserving some relics of the medieval system that have been lost elsewhere. 7 Note that these are two of the focus environments that favour 1-2 in MHG (section 3.2.5 above), and in both cases sentential stress falls on the object. Thus, as in MHG, it is difficult to determine whether the effect on word order in Zurich German is due to focus per se or a preference for certain prosodic patterns.

54

Chris Sapp

3.3.2 Is the loss of 1-2 a result of typological change? Lehmann (1971) argues that the increasing trend toward the 2-1 order in the history of German is part of a typological change from SVO to SOV. This would fall out from Greenberg’s (1966) Universal 16, which states that ‘[i]n languages with dominant order SOV, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb’. Based on the high frequency of extraposition in earlier stages of German, Lehmann (1971) claims that medieval German was SVO, while modern German displays the SOV order more consistently. As a result, Lehmann argues, German has tended to take on more of the features of an SOV-type language such as postpositions and the 2-1 order. In my MHG data (section 3.2.6 above) there is a correlation between extraposition and the 1-2 order, i.e. clauses without extraposition (thus OV) tend to also be 2-1. Ebert’s study of the VC in ENHG also appears to lend support to Lehmann’s idea, in that the increases in the OV and 2-1 orders show ‘great similarities in social stratification and time curves’ (1981: 234). Ebert finds that both OV and 2-1 increased in the sixteenth century, and the sharpest rise in the OV order preceded the sharpest rise in the 2-1 order. However, Ebert stops short of claiming that the increase in the verb-final order caused the increase of the 2-1 order, and he indicates that he is critical of Lehmann’s approach. Indeed, there is reason to be critical of a hypothesis that sees a direct diachronic cause and effect between the basic architecture of the clause and word order in the VC. First of all, consider that Swiss German and modern Dutch, like standard German, do not allow object extraposition, i.e. they are clearly SOV, yet both Swiss German and Dutch preserve the word-order variability in the VC that is lost in standard German. Second, as Kroch and Taylor (2000) argue for the history of English, the 2-1 versus 1-2 distinction can be independent of SOV versus SVO and must be diagnosed separately. Finally, Lehmann’s hypothesis does not consider the possibility that the apparently SVO orders in earlier German are derived from an underlying OV structure. Therefore, the next section will examine whether there is any good evidence for SVO in medieval German. 3.3.3 Medieval German as SOV Although MHG has sentences with surface SVO structures, which have been labelled extraposition in this chapter, we must investigate whether these are genuine evidence for underlying VO order. One must consider the possibility that sentences with ostensibly VO word order are derived from an underlying OV structure by some syntactic operation, like heavy NP shift in English, which moves NPs rightward. According to Kroch and Taylor (2000), the key diagnostic in this case is that a VO language should have both heavy and light elements to the right of the verb. Since light elements (pronouns and verbal particles) cannot move rightward, their

Microparameters in the verbal complex

55

presence to the right of the verb would unambiguously indicate underlying VO.8 In my MHG database, although extraposition (surface VO order) is relatively common at 19.7%, there are no instances of extraposed verbal particles or pronouns.9 If we add adverbs to Kroch and Taylor’s list of light elements that can serve as diagnostics for SVO, we add only two potential counter examples. There are two extraposed adverbs in MHG, both of which are probably light, consisting of just two syllables, as illustrated in (9).10 (9)

alſi hie biſcríbin is as here described2 is1 ‘as is described here above’

vorí. before

extraposed light adv. (Mühlhäuser R. 08v)

With only two possible exceptions to the tendency for only heavy elements to occur post-verbally, it is very unlikely that MHG is underlyingly VO, by Kroch and Taylor’s (2000) criteria. Rather, it is more likely that extraposition results from an OV base (10a.) by moving material rightward (10b.), which was first proposed for ENHG by Bies (1996).11 Support for this comes from examining the type of NP that tends to extrapose: recall from section 3.2.6 above that extraposed NPs in both MHG and ENHG tend to be heavy or focused. (10) a. *daz ſi den brunnin deſ lebintigen wazzerſ uerlazzin habint underlying have1 that they the well of living water left2 ‘that they have forsaken the well of living water’ (Speculum E. 36v) b. daz ſi ti uerlazzin habint [den brunnin deſ lebintigen wazzerſ]i If this analysis is correct, then the basic structure of the German clause has not changed from MHG to the present: it has remained underlying OV. The only change in this regard is the fact that extraposition has become increasingly restricted: while any (heavy) constituent could be extraposed in MHG, extraposition in MSG is essentially limited to clauses and adverbials (Lambert 1976). Therefore, if the basic OV parameter has not changed from MHG to the present, one cannot argue that the loss of variable word order in the VC in German is a result of a larger typological 8 The third kind of light element in Kroch and Taylor (2000) is stranded prepositions, but preposition stranding is very rare in MHG. 9 Note that the lack of extraposed pronouns and particles is not due to a paucity of these items in the database: pronouns frequently appear in the vicinity of the verbal complex (see Table 3.3), and there are fifty-two clauses with a verbal particle. Also note that in my study of ENHG (Sapp 2011), there are no verbal particles to the right of the verb and just one possible case of an extraposed light pronoun, although there are two cases in which an extraposed pronoun is the head of an immediately following relative clause. 10 Of the three extraposed adverbs in my ENHG data, all are heavy, containing the derivational suffix -lich. 11 Alternatively, under an antisymmetry analysis, one would claim that heavy/focused NPs remain in situ while lighter ones move to the left. For the sake of simplicity, in this chapter I assume the traditional head-final analysis of the German clause.

56

Chris Sapp

change. Instead, in the next section, I will propose that a separate parameter determines word order within the VC, and that this parameter is at the periphery of the language’s grammar.

3.4 Parameter theory and syntactic change in German 3.4.1 Uriagereka’s hierarchy of parameters In a paper on the development of word order in Basque, Uriagereka (2006) proposes that there is more than one kind of parameter. Uriagereka postulates that there are core and subset parameters, which are complex, set during the acquisition process, not subject to conscious manipulation by adults, and thus not (directly) subject to language change. In contrast to these parameters is the ‘periphery’, whose features are determined by ‘trivial parameters’ that are formally simpler (e.g. inversion), learned rather than acquired, subject to adult manipulation, and characteristic of formal registers.12 Uriagereka hypothesizes that syntactic change begins in the periphery, where extra-linguistic factors may cause adults to learn and use syntactic patterns that were not in the input when they acquired the language as children. If this manipulation of syntax is successful, it may provide input for the next generation of children, resulting in linguistic change at the periphery. Uriagereka notes that a change in the periphery may have no effect on other parameters, but under certain circumstances a peripheral change can lead to the resetting of a subset parameter. Likewise, a subset change may eventually bring about change to a core parameter of the language. Uriagereka’s periphery is very similar to the notion of ‘microparameter’, defined by Ayoun (2003) as a ‘superficial, binary variation in the realization of a syntactic structure’. Besides their simplicity and superficiality, microparameters are the locus of microvariation across dialects, and I would add sociolinguistic variation in syntax. Microparameters may be not only language- and even dialect-specific, but also construction-specific. Finally, I propose that as formally simple, superficial differences, the word orders determined by microparameters are more subject to interface conditions such as prosody and information structure. The OV/VO parameter is clearly a core parameter in Uriagereka’s hierarchy. In the next section, let us consider the evidence that the VC is a peripheral construction, resulting from a microparameter. 3.4.2 Verb-complex order as a microparameter The first argument that word order in the verbal complex is determined by a microparameter is the simplicity of the difference between the two settings. Unlike 12 In the published paper, Uriagereka (2006) does not specify whether there are parameters at the periphery. The idea that the periphery involves trivial parameters was explored in an earlier lecture (Uriagereka 2004).

Microparameters in the verbal complex

57

the OV/VO parameter, which depends on hierarchical structure, the difference between 2-1 and 1-2 is a simple inversion. This has led some scholars to propose that re-ordering in the VC is perhaps a post-syntactic operation such as PF movement (Wurmbrand 2004a). Second, there is evidence that word order in the VC is subject to conscious manipulation by adults, and at least at one point in history the increase in 2-1 occurred as a learned rather than acquired feature of the language. Ebert’s (1998) study of the letters of several individuals in early-modern Nuremberg finds that writers used variable word order in their earliest writing, but increasingly used 2-1 as they received more education and made more contacts outside Nuremberg. Third, in MHG and ENHG, the 2-1 order was typical for more formal writing, such as chancery documents, and associated with the highest-status and most educated writers. As Ebert (1981) argues, the 2-1 order becomes fixed for written German as ‘change from above’, and this has spread from the written language into colloquial speech. This is a prime example of external factors leading to a parameter resetting, which Uriagereka argues is only possible at the periphery. Fourth, the microparametric nature of VC word orders is evident in cross- and intra-linguistic variation. The continental West Germanic dialects show a bewildering number of possibilities in verb orders (especially when three or more verbs are involved), varying from dialect to dialect and construction to construction, as discussed by Wurmbrand (2004b). Fifth, order in the VC interacts with the interface, suggesting that it is at the periphery of syntax. In MHG, VC word order is clearly influenced by the prosody of the preceding word (see section 3.2.4) and there is evidence that certain focus conditions favour particular word orders, both in MHG (section 3.2.5) and in contemporary Swiss German (section 3.3.1), although it is not clear whether this effect is because of focus per se or to the prosodic manifestation of focus.13 As a final note, let us consider what the nature of such a parameter would be. The traditional generative account for the 1-2 order is the verb raising analysis, treated extensively by Haegeman (1992). Haegeman argues that the 1-2 order is derived from an underlying 2-1 structure by moving the non-finite verb to the right and head-adjoining it to the finite verb. Under such an analysis, the parameter in question would either allow or disallow verb raising and could be termed + VR.14 13 Sapp (2011) discusses in detail the relationship between prosody, focus, and word order in these constructions. 14 Under an antisymmetry approach, this becomes much more complicated: 1-2 represents the in situ word order, while 2-1 involves movement of the non-finite verb to the left. Thus variability in the VC would result from optional leftward movement of the non-finite verb, and the uniform 2-1 order of MSG would indicate that such movement is obligatory. See Hinterhölzl (2006) for an antisymmetry analysis of verbal complexes.

58

Chris Sapp

TABLE 3.10. Parameters for the position of verbs in continental West Germanic Parameter Head-final VP (OV) Object extraposition allowed VR allowed (perfect) VR allowed (modals)

MHG

Swiss / Dutch

MSG

þ þ þ þ

þ   þ

þ   

3.4.3 Toward an explanation of the changes from MHG to Modern German Having established that German has remained OV from the Middle Ages to the present, and that the changes in the word orders of the VC are a result of the setting of a microparameter, I will attempt to account for the changes in German syntax discussed in this chapter. First of all, the headedness of VP, a core parameter, has remained OV. Despite the fact that extraposition was fairly frequent in MHG (almost 20%), more than half of the extraposed constituents are adjunct PPs; extraposed objects were less frequent and tended to be heavy or focused. Thus object extraposition was marked and not frequent enough to trigger reanalysis of SOV to SVO, but instead extraposition declined to become very limited in most contemporary West Germanic varieties. Although the core OV parameter has remained unchanged, there has been change to the microparameter that determines word order within the VC, which I call the + VR parameter.15 The VR parameter is set to þ in MHG, which allows but does not require the 1-2 order. Moreover, there seem to be separate parameters for VCs in the perfect tense versus VCs with a modal verb. Both of these parameters are set to  in MSG, thus only 2-1 is possible. Standard Dutch and Zurich German, which strongly disfavour the 1-2 order in the perfect tenses, but allow both orders in the modal-infinitive syntagm, can be said to have different settings for the + VR (perfect) and + VR (modals) microparameters. These differences are summarized in Table 3.10. Of course, loss or maintenance of VR were not the only possible outcomes. A third possibility is that the high frequency of 1-2 (including 1-x-2) clauses could have led to reanalysis of German as an Infl-medial language.16 There are certainly ambiguous clauses, such as (11a.), which could be interpreted as an example of VR with extraposition or as leftward movement of the finite verb into a clause-medial, 15 Although Zurich German and some Dutch dialects allow both 1-2 and 1-x-2 with modals, standard Dutch allows only 1-2. This suggests that the 1-x-2 order is licensed by yet another microparameter, which we could call + VPR following Haegeman’s (1992) verb projection raising analysis. 16 This would have resulted in a grammar like that attested in Early Middle English, which, according to Kroch and Taylor (2000), has clauses that are Infl-medial and V-final.

Microparameters in the verbal complex

59

embedded V2 position (Infl). However, such clauses make up the minority of the 1-2 clauses in my database: of the 317 clauses with 1-2 or 1-x-2 order, only forty-eight (less than 13% of 1-2 clauses, or about 4% of all clauses in the database) are ambiguous with an Infl-medial analysis. The remainder cannot be analysed as embedded V2, as there are at least two constituents between the complementizer and the finite verb (11b.,c.). Thus, the majority of clauses with 1-2 or even 1-x-2 provide clear evidence for V-final grammar, and a reanalysis to Infl-medial grammar was never triggered in German. (11) a. Do Darivſ waz geweſen ſehſ iar kvnic. ambiguous VR or Infl-medial when D. was1 been2 six years king ‘When Darius had been king for six years . . . ’ (Buch der Könige 09va) b. den got gewalt uñ geriht hat verlihen. rel God power and rule has1 granted2

1-2 (unambiguous VR) cf. (2b.)

c. swaz wir vbelſ heten an dir getan. rel we evil had1 to you done2

1-x-2 (unambiguous VPR) cf. (2c.)

If the analysis presented in this chapter is correct, then the mechanism for the changes in question can be attributed to the interplay between sociolinguistic pressure and child language acquisition. I suggest that the development proceeded thus: MHG-speaking children acquired positive settings for the core OV parameter and the VR microparameters that allow the 1-2 order. With rich attestation of both the 1-2 and 2-1 orders in the data, children would have gradually learned the sociolinguistic, prosodic, and discourse conditions that favour or disfavour particular orders within the verbal complex. In the ENHG period, the most prestigious, super-regional written German began to favour the 2-1 order (Ebert 1981), and this preference was one that was learned as writers gained more exposure to such nonregional writing (Ebert 1998). Being determined by microparameters and at the periphery of the grammar, as argued here, these orders could be consciously manipulated, and at some point the avoidance of the 1-2 variant in writing must have carried over to speech. Children whose parents used mainly the 2-1 order, even if that order was produced by the adults as a conscious manipulation, would have reset the VR microparameter to disallow 1-2. This change has been carried farthest in the perfect tenses, affecting most continental West Germanic varieties, while the modal-infinitive syntagm continues to show variation across dialects.

4 Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish1 JOEL C. WALLENBERG

4.1 Introduction There is a long tradition, stretching back into the nineteenth century, of implicitly assuming a relationship between language change and child language acquisition in the notion of ‘reanalysis’. Recently, studies such as Yang (2000) have developed formal models of language acquisition and expanded them to model how new syntactic variants can arise among children and be maintained in adult speech communities, formalizing the notion of ‘grammar competition’ (Kroch 1989). However, there have been very few empirical studies of language acquisition that can be linked to specific, well-documented cases of grammatical change. This chapter investigates the relationship between acquisition and change in a study of a major phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish, the change in the structure of TP from a German-like Tense-final grammar to its modern Tensemedial grammar (Santorini 1992, 1993). In particular, this study will ask: was the direction of this change predetermined? Additionally, this chapter explores the question of exactly what parameter was changing when the position of the tensed verb changed in the history of Yiddish, and I will suggest that an antisymmetric approach to head-finality allows for a more precise understanding of how this historical change took place. 1 I would like to particularly thank Charles Yang for helping me to think about change in terms of acquisition in general, as well as for a number of helpful discussions regarding this chapter. Beatrice Santorini and Anthony Kroch were also particularly helpful in working out the ideas for the chapter and in interpreting the Early Yiddish data. I would also like to thank all of the attendees of DiGS XI at Unicamp, and one anonymous reviewer, for many helpful questions and comments. I would also like to acknowledge support for this work from NSF grant OISE-0853114. All errors are, of course, my own.

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

61

The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. In the section below I briefly summarize the historical change in Yiddish phrase structure that is under discussion, and frame the problem it poses for acquisition in terms of Yang’s (2000) model. In section 4.3, I show that Yang’s (2000) model for how children acquire syntactic variation in the input language cannot account for the data from Early Yiddish, at least in the most straightforward way. Section 4.4 discusses some data from childhood acquisition of modern German varieties which suggests that the previously assumed division of the Early Yiddish data into Tense-final and Tense-medial data may be flawed. Section 4.5 suggests a different understanding of the Early Yiddish data based on an antisymmetric account of the Tense-final grammar and the West Germanic verb (projection) raising construction, and shows that the observed historical change is now predicted under Yang’s (2000) model. Finally, in section 4.6 I offer some conclusions and directions for further study.

4.2 Yiddish and Yang’s acquisition model As Santorini (1992) and Santorini (1993) showed, Yiddish gradually changed from a Tense-final language, like modern German or Dutch, into a Tense-medial language (or, a left-headed TP language, under classical X-bar theoretic assumptions) roughly between the years 1400–1800. After the change was initiated, Tense-medial TPs were introduced into the Yiddish speech community, and a period of variation began during which there was a mixture of both phrase structures in the speech community. That is simply another way of saying that while the change was underway, there was a state of ‘grammar competition’ among Yiddish speakers (in the sense of Kroch 1989 and much subsequent work): there were both Tense-final and Tensemedial TPs evident in the performance of the community and produced by individual speakers, who could alternate between the two structures even from sentence to sentence within the same text (see Santorini 1992, where this fact is established beyond doubt). Ultimately, the frequency of Tense-medial TPs advanced at the expense of the older Tense-final system, until this natural evolutionary process resulted in the uniformly Tense-medial modern Yiddish. Under a classical X-bar phrase structure (where headedness is a matter of linearization in accordance with a ‘head parameter’ setting), this would mean that Yiddish changed from 1 to 2 below. Note that I will be assuming this classical, non-Kaynian (Kayne 1994, inter alia) view of head-initial and head-final phrase structure for the first three sections of this chapter; this view will be revised in section 4.5.

62

Joel C. Wallenberg

(1)

CP XP

C⬘ C

TP DPi

T⬘ Tense

vP ti . . . (2)

CP XP

C⬘ C

TP DPi

T⬘ Tense

vP ti . . .

The change in the position of Yiddish tense is a perfect test case for Yang’s (2000) model of syntactic acquisition: the change is as simple as a syntactic change can be, as it involves only one parameter, and the state of variation is well documented throughout almost the entire time course of the change (i.e. nearly all but the actuation of the change is attested). Once a new variant has been introduced into the linguistic environment of learners, the model in Yang (2000) is intended to evaluate the ‘fitness’ (in an evolutionary sense) of the two variants and predict whether the new variant will deterministically win out over the older variant (given enough time, and holding other environmental factors equal). Yang adapts the well-known learning model from Bush and Mosteller (1951) and Bush and Mosteller (1958) to syntactic acquisition in a situation of grammar competition, and evaluates the evolutionary fitness of the competing variants in terms of the amount of evidence each grammar makes available to the learner for acquiring it. A brief description of Yang’s syntactic learning model for the case of grammar competition is as follows (for details and the relevant mathematical proofs, see the full description in Yang 2000). First, given a mixture of two grammars in the input to the learner, G1 and G2, a child is expected to learn both grammars; this is simply another way of defining

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

63

‘grammar competition’, and it is the situation that Santorini (1992) observed in the intraspeaker variation of Yiddish speakers during the period of variation (see also Kroch 1989, Pintzuk 1991, Kroch 1994, and many studies building on those foundational studies). In acquiring the two grammars, the hypothetical child assigns some probability (weight) to each, and then continues to update these weights dynamically throughout the learning process, depending on the input data the child is exposed to in the speech community. Both grammars G1 and G2 generate some sentences that unambiguously identify them to the learner; if they did not, then the learner would not be able to know in the first place that both G1 and G2 are present. However, the two grammars most likely also generate some ambiguous sentences, sentences which could be the product of either grammar; e.g. an OV grammar and a VO grammar will both generate some short intransitive sentences of the form ‘The dog barked’, and these sentences will be string-wise identical no matter which of the two grammars generated them. Yang’s model states that when the child hears a sentence, the child picks a grammar to analyse the sentence, choosing blindly based only on the pre-existing weights associated with each grammar (i.e. the weights based on sentences the child heard prior to the current one). If the child hears an unambiguous sentence, e.g. only G1 could have produced the sentence, then if the child picked G1 beforehand and used it to try to analyse the sentence, G1 will be rewarded; otherwise, G2 will be punished and G1 will be indirectly rewarded. Either way, G1 ends up with an augmented weight. However, if the child encounters an ambiguous input, i.e. either G1 or G2 can analyse the string the child hears, then the child will reward whichever grammar she happened to be using at the time. Ultimately, as the task is iterated many times, the child will end up assigning a higher probability at the end of the learning to the grammar that was most successful in analysing unambiguous inputs. And, of course, this process can be iterated over a number of generations of learners as well, so the winner of a diachronic competition between two grammars over a long period of history will also be the one that can analyse the most unambiguous sentences in the input to learning. This is the same as saying that the most successful grammar is the one which generates the highest frequency of unambiguous outputs. When the learning process is iterated over a number of generations, the first generation of learners becomes the second generation’s parents (or adult speech community, more generally) and determines the composition of the linguistic input to the second generation’s learning. The grammar which can analyse the most unambiguous inputs, from the learner’s perspective, is by definition also the one producing the most unambiguous outputs, from the adult speaker’s perspective. As the weights are updated over and over again by the learner and, by extension, generations of learners using G1 and G2 alternately to analyse the outputs of G1 and G2 in the ambient linguistic environment, the grammar which produces more unambiguous sentences of its own type

64

Joel C. Wallenberg

will have its weight augmented more often. Yang (2000) also shows mathematically that the proportion of unambiguous sentences a grammar generates is decisive even independently of the initial weights of G1 and G2 and the initial frequencies of G1 and G2 in the linguistic environment when the learning process begins. Thus, even if a given grammar begins as an extreme minority variant, if it is detectable to the learner at all, it will eventually win out over the majority variant if it generates/ analyses a higher proportion of unambiguous sentences of its own type than does its competitor. In selectional, evolutionary terms, each grammar has a ‘fitness’ which determines how likely it is to ‘reproduce’ itself in a given learner’s probability weights and in the acquisition process of future generations of learners: Fitness(G) ¼ proportion of unambiguously ‘G’ clauses it generates out of all the clauses it generates. If a grammar, G1, has a higher fitness than another grammar, G2, i.e. it generates more unambiguous clauses which signal, ‘I’m a G1 clause’, then G1 has an ‘advantage’ over G2: Advantage(G1 over G2) ¼ Fitness(G1)  Fitness(G2) Yang argues that if Fitness(G1) > Fitness(G2), then G1 must win in the long run (and vice versa). Thus the outcome of any syntactic change is entirely fixed, once the change begins. The goal of the remainder of the chapter is to test the model in Yang (2000) against the empirical facts of the Yiddish change in the position of Tense, and make sense of the results of this experiment. We already know the result of the change: the Tense-medial (left-headed Tense) grammar won out and became the modern language. So, reasoning backwards, Yang’s model hypothesizes that the Tense-final grammar was less fit than the Tense-medial grammar; the Tense-medial grammar should generate a higher proportion of unambiguously Tense-medial sentences than the Tense-final grammar generates of unambiguously Tense-final sentences. As we will see in the next section, under standard definitions of the two grammars, this prediction is not borne out.

4.3 A hypothetical Early Yiddish learner We can test the hypothesis from Yang’s learning model using a parsed diachronic corpus of Yiddish (the Penn Yiddish Corpus, Santorini 1997/2008) to estimate the fitness of the Yiddish Tense-final and Tense-medial grammars, which were in competition during the period of phrase structure variation in the fifteenth through to the eighteenth centuries. Note that all of the data below is taken solely from subordinate clauses, as in Santorini (1992) and Santorini (1993), since even Tense-

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

65

final Yiddish matrix clauses were V2, exhibiting general tensed-verb movement to C as in German (following the standard analysis of West Germanic V2 going back to den Besten 1983). Thus, all matrix clauses in Yiddish are ambiguous between Tensefinal and Tense-medial phrase structure, from the point of view of both the analyst and the learner. In order to compare the relative fitnesses of the two grammars, it is necessary to estimate the frequency of unambiguous (subordinate) clauses each grammar generates from some kind of representative sample of each grammar’s performance. For the Tense-medial grammar, the natural choice is a sample of text from some time period after the Tense-final-to-Tense-medial change had gone to completion. Any Yiddish text from the nineteenth century or later is essentially uniformly Tensemedial, and so the frequencies of unambiguous versus ambiguous clause-types generated by the Tense-medial grammar were estimated from the texts in the Penn Yiddish Corpus from the years 1848–1947. (Note also that I have verified that no unambiguously Tense-final subordinate clauses occur in this sample.) For the Tense-final grammar, I adopted the same method, taking as my sample the West Yiddish texts in the Penn Yiddish Corpus from the year 1507 or earlier. There were no unambiguously Tense-medial subordinate clauses in this group of texts (which form the oldest time period of the most conservative dialect region in the corpus), and so this sample is as close to pure Tense-final Yiddish as one is likely to find.2 The majority of relevant clauses in this period come from one early Western Yiddish text, Elia ha-Levi ben Asher Ashkenazi’s (also called Elia Levita or Elia Bachur) Bovo Bukh (Joffe 1949). Having chosen the two sample corpora to represent the Tense-final and Tensemedial Yiddish grammars, the unambiguous clauses of each type are those that contain certain diagnostic elements, elements which can unambiguously diagnose a clause’s underlying structure. Following Santorini (1992) and Santorini (1993), these diagnostic elements include sentential negation and verbal particles (i.e. also known as Germanic separable prefixes) including loshen koydesh elements,3 both of which only occur preceding a finite verb in Tense-final clauses and following a finite verb in tense-medial ones (see also, for the use of diagnostic elements in analysing Old and Middle English: Pintzuk 1991; Kroch and Taylor 2000; Pintzuk 2005; Pintzuk 2 It is not possible to be completely certain that this sample is 100% Tense-final. However, any error in this regard would only artificially inflate the estimated frequency of ambiguous clauses generated by the Tense-final grammar (because some truly Tense-medial clauses would be incorrectly counted as ambiguous Tense-final clauses). However, this potential error is not problematic to the argument or results presented in the rest of the chapter: as you will see below, it would only strengthen the main result of the chapter if we corrected the estimated frequency of ambiguous clauses downward for the Tense-final grammar. 3 Certain elements that were borrowed from Hebrew and form predicates when combined with German light verbs, such as khasone hobn (¼ ‘to get married’, lit. ‘marriage have’) or moykhel zeyn (¼ ‘to forgive’, lit. ‘forgive be’). These have the syntax of native Germanic particles in Yiddish; see Santorini (1989), Santorini (1992).

66

Joel C. Wallenberg

and Taylor 2006; Pintzuk and Haeberli 2006). Pronominal objects, which do not participate in extraposition constructions because of their light prosodic status, are diagnostic of a tense-medial clause when they occur following a finite verb (see references above, inter alia). Similarly, Wallenberg (2008) and Wallenberg (2009) showed that no objects scramble leftward across the finite verb in Yiddish (and in other languages; see Wallenberg 2009 for details), and so all objects preceding the finite verb are diagnostic of Tense-final structure. These diagnostics are illustrated in the examples below: Particle, object, and negation diagnosing Tense-final: (3)

zeyt gibetin d[a]z mir eyer fatr be prayed that me-dat your father ‘Hope/ask that your father is forgiving me’ (letter in Weinryb 1937, date: 1588)

(4)

. . . das ikh im ab that I him off ‘that I refused him’

moykhl iz forgiving is

zag spoke

(G”otz fun Fiderholtz’s Complaint, date: 1518) (5)

vau keyn fleysh nakh keyn blut nit What no flesh nor no blood not ‘What neither flesh nor blood is . . . ’ (Preface to Lev Tov, date: 1620)

iz is

In (3) and (4) above, the particles moykhl and ab precede the Tensed verb, indicating that the verb has not moved leftward to a medial Tense head in a leftheaded TP structure, and so these clauses are Tense-final. Similarly, the preverbal positions of negation in (5) and of the objects in (3) and (4) also show that Tense appears at the right edge of the structure in these examples. In contrast, the examples below are Tense-medial clauses, showing particles, negation, and a pronominal object following the finite verb. In examples (6)–(9), the position of each of the boldface diagnostic elements shows that the finite verb has moved leftward past it to a medial Tense head. Particle, negation, and pronominal object diagnosing Tense-medial: (6)

un dernokh hot zi im gefregt, tsi er hot lib tsimes and afterwards has she him asked Q he has love tsimes ‘Afterwards, she asked him if he likes tsimes’ (Olsvanger 1947, Royte Pomerantsen, date: 1947)

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish (7)

. . . vi me ruft oyf dem rov tsu der toyre how one calls up the rabbi to the Torah (Olsvanger 1947, Royte Pomerantsen, date: 1947)

(8)

az men hot ihm friher keyn mahl nist dem emes gzagt that one has him earlier no time not the truth said ‘that he hadn’t earlier been told the truth even one time’ (Vos iz dos azuns geshehn in Vien un in Lemberg?, revolutionary proclamation by Judah ben Abraham, date: 1848)

(9)

der tate hot im gefregt, vi azoy men ruft im The father has him asked how one calls him ‘The father asked him what his name was’ (Grine Felder, date: 1910)

67

Finally, in clauses containing a finite auxiliary and a nonfinite verb, the order nonfinite-verb > finite-auxiliary is diagnostic of Tense-final structure, as that order only occurs in undisputed tense-final languages (e.g. modern German, Dutch).4 (10) and (11) both contain the tense-final diagnostic of a nonfinite verb preceding the finite auxiliary, and, in addition, (10) also shows pre-finite-verb negation and a preceding object, and (11) shows the additional diagnostic of the pre-tensed verb particle, oyz (all diagnostics are in boldface below). V > Aux order (among other things) diagnosing Tense-final: (10)

. . . d[a]z mir yusf di h’ zhubim nit gebn vil that me Joseph the five guilders not give wants ‘that Joseph doesn’t want to give me the five guilders’ (court testimony, date: 1465; also cited in Santorini 1992)

(11)

d[a]z es unzr her gut oyz ginumn hut far an that it our lord good out took has presently ‘ . . . that our good Lord has made a success of it presently’ (Leib bar Moses Melir’s Book of Esther, date: 1589)

In addition to subordinate clauses with the above diagnostic elements, there is a great deal of ambiguous data in the Early Yiddish written record, and so, presumably, also in the input to the hypothetical learner of Early Yiddish. In fact, the majority of clauses in the corpus are ambiguous with respect to the Tense-medial/ Tense-final parameter. Some of these are ambiguous because there is simply not 4 With the exception of stylistic fronting (SF) in languages like Icelandic. I do not pursue this point further here, since there is no clear evidence for SF in the history of Yiddish and V > finite-Aux orders do not persist into the modern Yiddish period. However, it is worth noting that SF may in fact arise from a change from Tense-final to Tense-medial in the modern languages that exhibit it, which have arguably undergone such a change.

68

Joel C. Wallenberg

enough material available in the clause to diagnose the underlying structure, such as intransitive clauses containing only a subject and finite lexical verb. In other cases, clauses with more material are nonetheless amenable to more than one analysis in terms of underlying TP structure because of the existence of other syntactic operations/constructions which are known to habitually obscure the underlying position of Tense. Following the numerous studies cited above with respect to the set of diagnostic elements in Germanic, the two most important of these obscuring constructions in studying the Tense-final to Tense-medial change are the West Germanic verb (projection) raising construction (VPR), as found in modern Dutch, West Flemish, and South/Swiss German (see Wurmbrand 2004, for an overview of the phenomenon and relevant literature) shown in (12), and various types of extraposition processes (e.g. PP extraposition as in (13) and DP extraposition or heavy NP shift as in (14)). Note that the boldface diagnostic elements in the three sentences below demonstrate conclusively that these constructions occur in Tensefinal Early Yiddish clauses. (12)

dz es di mtsreym nit zaltn zehn that it the Egyptians not should see. ‘ . . . that the Egyptians shouldn’t see it’ (Leib bar Moses Melir’s Book of Esther, date: 1589)

(13)

d[a]z ikh reyn verde fun der ashin that I clean become from the ashes ‘that I become clean from the ashes’ (Johann Jakob Christian’s Eyn sheyn purim shpil, 1004, date: 1697; also cited in Santorini 1992: 607)

(14)

ven er nit veys eyn guti veyd if he not knows a good pasture ‘if he doesn’t know a good pasture’ (Abraham Apotheker Ashkenazi’s Sam Hayyim, 41, date: 1590; also cited in Santorini 1992: 607)

In this way, many very frequent strings in the corpus provide no evidence to the learner as to whether the target language is Tense-medial or Tense-final; e.g. the configuration Subject > Finite-Lexical-Verb > Object could represent a Tensemedial clause or a Tense-final clause with extraposition. Or, if a situation of competing grammars obtains in the input to the learner, these strings do not help the learner determine what the target frequencies of the two grammars are. Two examples of ambiguous subordinate clauses appear below. Note the difference in the dates of the two examples: these strings are easily generated by either the Tense-final or the Tense-medial grammar.

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish (15)

vu er vust di altn hern how he knew the old lords/knights. (Elia Levita’s Bovo Bukh, date: 1507)

(16)

az der rov hot a toes that the rabbi has a mistake ‘that the Rabbi made a mistake’ (Royte Pomerantsen, date: 1947)

69

The table below shows counts and frequencies of ambiguous versus unambiguous strings for both the Tense-final and Tense-medial grammars, as estimated by the sample corpora of pre-1507 Western Yiddish and post-1848 (Eastern) Yiddish, respectively. Clauses containing only a single finite verb are termed ‘simplex’, and clauses containing a finite auxiliary and at least one nonfinite verb are labelled ‘complex’.5 The comparison of the two sample corpora in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 pose a clear problem for our understanding of the phrase structure change in Early Yiddish. (Figure 4.1: black ¼ simplex, grey ¼ complex) According to the sample corpora, the Tense-final grammar produces a higher frequency of unambiguously Tense-final clauses than the Tense-medial grammar TABLE 4.1. Tense-final and Tense-medial sample corpora Early West Yiddish (Tense-final sample) Simplex Ambiguous 50 CP-recursion: ambiguous, simplex, and complex counted together Unambiguous 32 Frequency of unambiguous Tense-final .390

Complex

All

42 57 .576

92 34 89 .414

Complex

All

841

1593 65 842 .337

Late East Yiddish (Tense-medial sample) Simplex Ambiguous 752 CP-recursion: ambiguous, simplex, and complex counted together Unambiguous 363 Frequency of unambiguous Tense-medial .326

479 .363

The ‘CP-recursion’ row refers to clear embedded V-to-C movement, which will always be ambiguous between Tense-final and Tense-medial. The cases counted in this row are embedded contexts in which some non-subject XP has been topicalized and the finite verb has inverted with a subject pronoun. Because of a minor oversight, the query counting these did not separate the simplex and complex cases. 5

70

Joel C. Wallenberg 1.0 0.8 0.6 Predicted Advantage of Final over Medial = .077

0.4 0.2 0.0 All Tense-Final (n = 215)

All Tense-Medial (n = 2500)

FIGURE 4.1 Tense-final and Tense-medial chart 1.

produces of unambiguously Tense-medial clauses. Fitness(Tense-final) ¼ .414 and Fitness(Tense-medial) ¼ .337, giving the Tense-final grammar an advantage of .077 over the Tense-medial grammar according to the model from Yang (2000). This result predicts that the Tense-final grammar should have won out over the Tensemedial grammar over time, and that the change from Tense-final to Tense-medial should never have gone to completion. Indeed, if Tense-medial had come to occur at an appreciable frequency in the Yiddish speech community for some non-obvious reason, then the change should have reversed after that point. Of course, the historical record and modern Yiddish show that the change did indeed go to completion in favour of the Tense-medial grammar, and so we are left with a puzzle that has one of three possible solutions: 1. Yang’s (2000) model of acquisition and change is wrong. 2. There is some inherent (UG or processing) bias in favour of Tense-medial (or left-headedness generally), which causes learners to reward that grammar more when it analyzes a sentence. 3. I have not grouped the data in a way that accurately represents how the competition was actually perceived by the learner. The first possibility would reject a model which is simply an adaptation of a very simple and well-established model of statistical learning. The second possibility is a serious one, but it is not clear how to explore it in the context of the present study. Therefore, I will adopt the third hypothesis for the time-being as it is the most restrictive one, and argue that it leads to a reasonable analysis of the historical Yiddish case as well as a productive line of research in general.

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

71

4.4 The acquisition of modern German Two observations concerning the childhood acquisition of modern German, a uniformly Tense-final target grammar, provide a clue to the resolution of the paradox with which we ended the previous section. First, the data show that the modern Yiddish Tense-medial grammar is a natural innovation for acquirers of Tense-final, even when those acquirers receive no direct evidence for a Tense-medial grammar. And second, learners of Tense-final varieties of German, which also show the West Germanic verb (projection) raising (VPR) construction (which in fact is all varieties of German, but to varying degrees), do not straightforwardly interpret this construction as an instance of the target Tense-final grammar. Instead, there is evidence to suggest that they relate them to a Tense-medial hypothesis. Fritzenschaft et al. (1990) and Gawlitzek-Maiwald (1997) show that children acquiring German make a variety of errors in both matrix and subordinate clause syntax on the way to their ultimately successful acquisition of the target grammar. In particular, they record acquisition errors in which the children produce what appear to be Tense-medial subordinate clauses; they produce subordinate clauses containing unambiguous diagnostics for Tense-medial of the type that occur in the modern Yiddish Tense-medial grammar, and were not available in Yiddish before that grammar was innovated. The sentences shown below were uttered by children acquiring German monolingually from two German-speaking parents. (17)

dass du hast net die meerjungfrau that you have not the mermaid ‘ . . . that you don’t have the mermaid’ (Benny, 3 years 1 month old, Fritzenschaft et al. 1990: 76)

(18)

wenn des dreht sich was tut ’s dann if it turns refl what does it then ‘if it turns, then what does it do’ (Benny, 3 years, 2 months, and 26 days old, Gawlitzek-Maiwald 1997: 137)

In (17) above, the finite verb has moved leftward across the negation net, leaving it to the right in the modern Yiddish order. Similarly, the weak pronoun sich appears to the right of the finite verb in (18), which is another of the Tense-medial diagnostics I enumerated in the section above. Note that the overt complementizer dass in (17) and the overt subordinator wenn in (18) show that these contexts are clearly embedded and make it less likely that the verb movement in these clauses is due to embedded V-to-C movement (i.e. CP-recursion). Penner (1990) records similar examples from his study of the acquisition of Bernese Swiss German, such as (19) and (20) below.

72

Joel C. Wallenberg

(19)

nei eine, wo tuet nid hokche no someone who does not sit (S., 3 years old, Penner 1990: 178)

(20)

we me tuet ’s lige la when one does it lie let ‘ . . . when one lets it lie’ (M., 3 years old, Penner 1990: 178)

Like the sentences from the child Benny above, these two subordinate clauses from two different acquirers of Bernese Swiss contain the unambiguous diagnostics for Tense-medial of post-tensed-verb negation and weak object pronoun. Additionally, (19) is the clearest example of Tense-medial of all since relative clauses are a well-established non-CP-recursion environment across German, and so the tensed verb must have moved to a lower head than C here (Iatridou and Kroch 1992). In addition, Penner (1990) makes the second observation which relates directly to the study of Early Yiddish: he finds that learners of Swiss German are slower to acquire the target syntax of their variety than are learners of standard German, and he suggests that this is due to the frequent use of the VPR construction in adult Bernese Swiss German, which obscures the Tense-final grammar for the children. In fact, it may be no coincidence that most of the Tense-medial subordinate clauses cited in Fritzenschaft et al. (1990) and Gawlitzek-Maiwald (1997) come from the child Benny, who has a Swabian mother, and so is likely to have been exposed to the VPR orders that are common throughout the Southern varieties of German (including Swiss varieties). The idea that VPR slows down the acquisition of Tense-final, coupled with the fact that children exposed to VPR sometimes innovate a Tensemedial grammar, suggests that children do not interpret VPR as a mere variant of Tense-final. They may be positing a relationship between VPR and Tense-medial which has the following result: if the children happen to entertain the hypothesis that they should acquire a Tense-medial grammar, they do not consider VPR clauses in the input as counting against this hypothesis. Or, possibly, these clauses even reinforce the Tense-medial hypothesis. In either case, the presence of VPR in the input would slow the acquisition of Tense-final, as Penner found, because it would take longer for the children to reject their Tense-medial hypothesis under either scenario. The results from German acquisition prompt a possible answer to the paradox of the Yiddish historical development. If children acquiring German do not straightforwardly count VPR clauses as Tense-final, then the hypothetical acquirer of early Yiddish would also have difficulty doing so. This is especially plausible given that the acquirers of Early Yiddish were also confronted with actual positive evidence for a Tense-medial grammar, unlike the acquirers of modern German: the goal of the German and Swiss children is to reject the Tense-medial hypothesis, while the

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

73

Yiddish speaking children had the more subtle task of correctly acquiring the frequencies of two competing grammars, once the Tense-medial grammar had attained any appreciable frequency in the population.

4.5 A Kaynian solution to the puzzle The solution to the problem posed at the end of section 4.4 above lies in how we divide the evidence to the hypothetical learner of Early Yiddish. Yang’s model predicts the outcome of Yiddish becoming a uniformly Tense-medial language to be impossible according to the division of the input I presented in section 4.4. If we have reason to believe that Yang’s model is still correct, then the division of the data in section 4.4 must have been incorrect in some way. In particular, the data from the childhood acquisition of modern German suggest that we divided the input to the hypothetical Early Yiddish child wrongly with respect to the West Germanic verb (projection) raising construction. If studies such as Biberauer (2003) and Wallenberg (2009) are on the right track in their analysis of VPR, then the effect of this construction on the childhood acquisition of Tense-final Swiss German may go beyond the mere surface similarity between VPR and Tense-medial languages. Penner (1990) only went so far as to suggest that the seemingly Tense-initial verb-clusters which adult VPR creates in the input to children represent a complication in the Bernese Swiss German system, and so slow down the acquisition of the target Tense-final grammar. VPR clauses distract from the evidence for the Tense-final system, and have to be learned as an additional derivation in the grammar. However, in an antisymmetric approach to head-finality in the tradition of Kayne (1994), head-final orders are derived from underlyingly head-initial ones, and so by hypothesis, the Aux > Verb order characteristic of VPR represents the underlying left-headed order of verbal heads in the structure, just as it does in a Tense-medial language, such as modern English, Icelandic, or modern Yiddish. Following the approach in Biberauer (2003) and Biberauer and Roberts (2005), the difference between Tense-final and Tense-medial languages is not the underlying order of heads, but rather whether or not the vP (or the relevant projection containing the lexical verb) is pied-piped along with the subject as it moves to fill Spec,TP, leaving the tensed verb in final position. Thus, the derivation of the Early Yiddish Tense-final clause in (10) above is as shown in (21) below: (21)

d[a]z [vP mir yusf di h’ zhubim nit gebn ] vil tvP

Wallenberg (2009: 6.3) expands on this analysis and proposes that the VPR construction in Tense-final languages is the result of a similar pied-piping of a vP to Spec,TP, but a smaller, remnant vP which the lexical verb has left by headmovement. In this way, the arguments of the lexical verb and any low-vP-attached

74

Joel C. Wallenberg

adjuncts are deposited in a position preceding the finite verb, but leaving the lexical verb in clause-final position, as shown in the following structure for example (12) above (see Wallenberg 2009 for details and extensive discussion): (22)

dz [vP es di mtsreym nit ] zaltn tvP zehn tvP

Thus, the antisymmetric approach analyses the VPR construction in Tense-final Early Yiddish and the modern Yiddish Tense-medial system as being quite similar. The Tense-final VPR construction is distinguished by one additional layer of structure being pied-piped to Spec,TP with the subject, but both Tense-final VPR and the modern Yiddish Tense-medial system display the underlying order of verbal heads in the surface syntax. Returning to the data from our sample corpora, the chart at Figure 4.2 is identical to the chart above in section 4.4, except that the light grey area shows how much of the Tense-final grammar’s unambiguous data is composed of subordinate clauses showing the VPR construction, i.e. clauses with a finite auxiliary and a nonfinite verb, in which the verbs are in the VPR (Aux > V) order. Now let us suppose that we have been incorrect in tallying these clauses up on the side of unambiguous evidence to the learning in favour of the Tense-final grammar. Of course, they are clearly not Tense-medial either, as they all contain some other structure that is considered diagnostic of Tense-final, and so is not generated by the modern Yiddish Tense-medial grammar. However, following the antisymmetric approach described above, suppose that these clauses represent something of a mixed signal to a learner, as the results in Penner (1990) potentially suggest, particularly if the learner is faced with a situation of competing Tense-final and Tense-medial grammars. On the one hand, the clauses provide evidence that the 1.0 0.8 0.6 Predicted Advantage of Final over Medial = .077

0.4 0.2 0.0 All Tense-Final (n = 215)

All Tense-Medial (n = 2500)

FIGURE 4.2 Tense-final and Tense-medial chart 2.

Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish

75

underlying left-headed structure should appear on the surface, just as in the Tensemedial grammar. On the other hand, these clauses provide evidence that more structure should appear preceding the finite verb than the Tense-medial grammar allows, as in the Tense-final grammar. Perhaps this type of mixed signal can be learned in the context of a homogenous Tense-final target grammar, as in the Swiss German case, but it cannot be successfully used by children to decide in favour of the Tense-final grammar over a Tensemedial grammar if the target is a situation of competing grammars. The status of VPR examples as a mixed signal is only expected under the Kaynian approach, since VPR represents the underlying order of heads under that account. Under a traditional non-Kaynian analysis of VPR, VPR is a local permutation of an underlyingly right-headed structure, and VPR would only be learned as an additional variant of the Tense-final system. VPR would therefore be straightforwardly counted as Tensefinal, as we did above. If we remove the VPR sentences from consideration as suggested by the Kaynian approach, and hypothesize that learners (and generations of learners) do not use them to decide the outcome of the competition, then the revised relative fitness of the two grammars can be seen in the chart at Figure 4.3. The effect of removing the VPR clauses from consideration has changed Advantage (GTense–final over GTense–medial) such that now the Tense-medial grammar is predicted to take the place of the Tense-final grammar in the population over the generations following its innovation. The conclusion is clear: treating VPR as a minor variant of Tense-final makes the wrong diachronic prediction for Yiddish, but applying an antisymmetric understanding of the VPR structure leads us to the correct prediction. 1.0 0.8 0.6 Predicted Advantage of Medial over Final = .100

0.4 0.2 0.0 All Tense-Final (n = 165)

All Tense-Medial (n = 2500)

FIGURE 4.3 Tense-final and Tense-medial chart 3.

76

Joel C. Wallenberg

4.6 Directions for further research and conclusions In this chapter, I have presented the change in the position of Tense in Early Yiddish as a test case for the learning model in Yang (2000). This model has the property that change is always unidirectional, and in this case, it predicted the wrong direction of change according to the traditional understanding of the Tense-final grammar and the West Germanic verb (projection) raising construction. This clear and precisely defined incorrect hypothesis led us to entertain a new hypothesis about how the learner must have interpreted the syntactic variation in Early Yiddish once the input became mixed. This new hypothesis was in line both with data from studies of the modern acquisition of German and a particular theoretical approach to the patterns found in the Tense-final grammar, an antisymmetric approach. However, this analysis raises a number of questions because of the prominent place it gives the VPR construction in explaining the change in Yiddish Tense. For example, does a Tense-final language need to exhibit VPR in order to change to Tense-medial? Both Early Yiddish and Old English changed to Tense-medial and both showed high frequencies of VPR (for OE see Pintzuk and Haeberli 2006), but we need more detailed descriptions of this change in order to decide if VPR is always a necessary condition for the change from Tense-final to Tense-medial. If possible, investigating this change in North Germanic would be a potential next step in deciding this question. This study has shown that the study of language change, language acquisition, and a careful understanding of the linguistic structures involved in variation can interact to inform each other in the development and testing of precise quantitative hypotheses. While there is clearly much more work to be done in relating the acquisition of syntactic variants to morphosyntactic change, it is my hope that the approach taken in this chapter will be found useful in future quantitative studies of this relationship.

5 Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in the history of Portuguese ADRIANA CARDOSO

5.1 Introduction This chapter investigates a specific change that took place in the history of Portuguese involving the extraposition1 of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs). Although RRC-extraposition has been a neglected domain in the literature on Portuguese (in both the synchronic and the diachronic dimension), I will show that this phenomenon raises some challenging questions for linguistic theory in general and for the study of syntactic changes in particular. From a theoretical point of view, there are a large number of competing analyses of extraposition in the literature. Generally speaking, the different analyses can be divided into three main groups: extraposition as right-hand adjunction (Culicover and Rochemont 1990); extraposition as VP-internal stranding (Kayne 1994); and extraposition as specifying coordination (Koster 2000; De Vries 2002). The different syntactic theories on extraposition are usually seen as competing analyses, each one trying to provide a unified account of extraposition across languages. In this chapter, I will explore the hypothesis that there is no unified account of extraposition to be offered across languages. Moreover, I will argue that, from a diachronic point of view, different syntactic analyses are necessary to explain the changes affecting RRC-extraposition at different stages of the same language. Focusing on empirical evidence from Portuguese, I will show that Contemporary European Portuguese (CEP) sharply contrasts with earlier stages of Portuguese with respect to the properties of RRC1 I will use the term extraposition in a pre-theoretical sense to refer to a relative clause (RC) that does not appear adjacent to the antecedent, being separated from it by material that belongs to the matrix clause, as sketched in (i):

(i) [ . . . [antecedent] . . . RC] The material that breaks the adjacency between the antecedent and the RC (henceforth, intervening material) will be underlined for expository purposes.

78

Adriana Cardoso

extraposition.2 To explain these contrasts, I will propose that extraposed RRCs in earlier stages of Portuguese differ in their structure and derivation from extraposed RRCs in CEP: the former are derived from specifying coordination (plus ellipsis) (De Vries 2002), whereas the latter are derived from stranding (Kayne 1994). As far as the syntactic change is concerned, I will tentatively suggest that the change affecting extraposed RRCs is a by-product of another change that took place in the history of Portuguese: namely, the loss of IP-scrambling as reported by Martins (2002). Adopting Lightfoot’s (1991) insights on the relation between language change and language acquisition, I will hypothesize that, with the loss of IPscrambling, an important trigger for the specifying coordination was lost and the learners converged on a new grammar, starting to generate extraposed RRCs with a stranding structure. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.2 provides an overview of the various properties of RRC-extraposition: (i) in CEP (section 5.2.1); (ii) from a cross-linguistic perspective (section 5.2.2); and (iii) in earlier stages of Portuguese (section 5.2.3). Section 5.3 is devoted to the syntactic analysis of RRC-extraposition in CEP and in earlier stages of Portuguese. Section 5.4 shows how the change that took place in the history of Portuguese can be explained in terms of the nonunitary approach to extraposition proposed here. Finally, section 5.5 concludes the chapter.

5.2 Properties of RRC-extraposition 5.2.1 Properties of RRC-extraposition in CEP In CEP, RRC-extraposition displays the following cluster of properties: (i) definiteness effect; (ii) restriction on extraposition from PPs; (iii) restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions. 5.2.1.1 Definiteness effect Extraposed RRCs can only take ‘indefinite’ noun phrases as antecedents. As illustrated in (1) and (2), RRC-extraposition is fine with indefinite antecedents but impossible with definite ones.3 2 As for earlier stages of Portuguese, the data considered in this chapter are primarily drawn from the texts edited in Martins (2001), available on-line in the Digital Corpus of Medieval Portuguese (CIPM – Corpus Informatizado do Português Medieval), http://cipm.fcsh.unl.pt/. These data are combined with data drawn from other sources, namely (i) other texts available in CIPM; (ii) texts in the Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese (TYC), available in http://www.tycho.iel.unicamp.br/tycho/corpus/en/ index.html; (iii) other editions, namely Demanda do Santo Graal (ed. Piel and Nunes 1988), Livro de Linhagens (ed. Brocardo 2006), Gil Vicente: todas as obras (coord. Camões 1999), and Crónica de D. Fernando - Fernão Lopes (ed. Macchi 1975); and (iv) several data drawn from grammars and studies of the history of the Portuguese language. 3 Note that the non-extraposed order of these sentences is acceptable with a definite antecedent, as illustrated in (i):

(i) Chegou ontem o rapaz que te quer conhecer. arrived yesterday the boy that you:cl wants meet:inf

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese (1)

Chegou um/*o rapaz ontem que te quer conhecer. arrived a *the boy yesterday that you: cl wants meet: inf ‘A/the boy arrived yesterday that wants to meet you.’

(2)

Encontrei um/ *o rapaz no cinema que perguntou met:1sg a *the boy at.the cinema that asked ‘Yesterday I met a/the boy at the cinema that asked for you.’

79

por ti. for you

Moreover, the antecedent of an extraposed RRC (corresponding to the X position in (3)) can be, for example, um livro ‘a book’, três livros ‘three books’, alguns livros ‘some books’, muitos livros ‘many books’, or livros ‘books’, but not os livros ‘the books’, aqueles livros ‘those books’, or todos os livros ‘all the books’. (3)

Foi/foram publicado(s) X recentemente que vale a pena was/were published X recently that is.worth ‘X that is/are worth reading was/were recently published.’

ler. read:inf

Notably, the noun phrases that can surface as the antecedent of an extraposed RRC can be grouped together under the class of weak noun phrases (as opposed to strong noun phrases) identified by Milsark (1974). Hence, the descriptive generalization that captures the relation between RRC-extraposition and the definiteness effect can be stated as in (4): (4) The definiteness effect and RRC-extraposition In CEP, RRC-extraposition can only take place from weak noun phrases. 5.2.1.2 Restriction on extraposition from PPs Extraposed RRCs cannot take the object of a preposition as their antecedent, as illustrated in (5) and (6). (5)

*O João deu o livro a uma rapariga ontem the J. gave the book to a girl yesterday na festa. at.the party ‘Yesterday João gave the book to a girl who was at the party.’

(6)

*O João candidatou-se a uma câmara nesse ano que fica the J. ran.se:cl for a town.council in.that year that is no distrito de Bragança. in.the district of B. ‘That year João ran for a position on a town council that is located in the district of Bragança.’

que that

estava was

80

Adriana Cardoso

5.2.1.3 Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions A. Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal subjects Extraposed RRCs can take post-verbal subjects as their antecedent, as illustrated in (7a.) and (8a.) However, if the subject is construed pre-verbally, the sentence is out, as illustrated in (7b.) and (8b.). (7)

a. Ontem explodiu uma bomba em Israel que causou 5 mortos. yesterday exploded a bomb in I. that caused 5 deaths ‘Yesterday a bomb that caused 5 deaths exploded in Israel.’ b. *Ontem uma bomba explodiu em Israel que causou 5 mortos. yesterday a bomb exploded in I. that caused 5 deaths

(8)

que queria informações sobre a a. Telefonou um rapaz ontem phoned a boy yesterday that wanted details about the tua casa. your house ‘A boy phoned yesterday who wanted details about your house.’ b. *Um a tua your

rapaz telefonou ontem que queria informações sobre a boy phoned yesterday that wanted details about the casa house

B. Restriction on extraposition from other pre-verbal constituents Extraposed RRCs can take as antecedent a preposed focus (see (9)), a wh-constituent (see (10)) and a preposed emphatic/evaluative phrase (in the sense of Raposo 1995 and Ambar 1999) (see (11)). (9)

Poucas pessoas conheço que fazem interpolação, mas todas elas few people know:1sg that make interpolation but all they produzem coisas deste tipo. produce things of.this type ‘I know few people who make interpolation, but all of them produce things like this.’

(10)

Quantas pessoas apareceram que não foram how.many people showed.up that not were ‘How many people who were not invited showed up?’

convidadas? invited

(11)

Muito whisky o João bebeu que estava a.lot.of whisky the J. drank that was ‘João drank a lot of whisky that was expired!’

do of.the

fora out

prazo! expiry.date

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

81

However, extraposition is incompatible with topicalization. See the contrasts in (12) and (13): (12)

a. Pessoas que não tinham bilhete, apareceram às centenas! people that not had ticket showed.up by hundreds ‘People who did not have a ticket showed up by the hundreds.’ b. *Pessoas, apareceram às centenas que não tinham bilhete! people showed.up by hundreds that not had ticket

(13)

a. Pessoas que praticam yoga, também conheço. people that practice yoga also know:1sg ‘I also know people who practice yoga.’ b. * Pessoas, também conheço que praticam yoga. people also know:1sg that practice yoga

5.2.2 Properties of RRC-extraposition from a cross-linguistic perspective Interestingly, in a quick survey of the behavior of extraposition in different languages, we see that these restrictions do not universally apply. Some examples of languages that behave differently with respect to these restrictions are given below. 5.2.2.1 Definiteness effect Not all languages exhibit the definiteness effect found in CEP: extraposition from strong noun phrases is possible, for example, in English (see (14)), Dutch (see (15)) and German (see (16)). (14)

The woman came in yesterday that I told you about. (Givón 2001: 206)

(15)

Ik heb de man gezien die zijn I have the man seen who his ‘I have seen the man who lost his bag.’

tas bag

verloor. lost (De Vries 2002: 65)

(16)

als sie endlich selbst über die Musik erzählen darf, when she finally herself about the music tell may die sie macht. that she makes ‘( . . . ) when she finally is allowed to speak herself about the music that she makes.’ (Tübinger Baumbank des Deutschen/Schriftsprache, cited by Strunk 2007)

5.2.2.2 Restriction on extraposition from PPs The restriction on extraposition from PPs does not apply equally to all languages. It is reported in the literature that extraposed RRCs can take the object of a preposition as the antecedent, for example, in English (see (17)) and Dutch (see (18)).

82

Adriana Cardoso

(17)

John is going to talk to someone tomorrow who he had a lot of faith in. (Kayne 1994: 126)

(18)

Ik heb op een plek gelopen waar jij ook I have on a spot walked where you also ‘I have walked on a spot where you also have been.’

bent have

geweest. been

(De Vries 2002: 244) 5.2.2.3 Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions A. Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal subjects Barbosa (2009) reports that the restriction against having extraposed-RRCs with pre-verbal subjects holds for CEP, Spanish, Catalan, and Italian but not for English (see (19)a) and French (see (19)b). (19)

a. A man arrived that wants to talk to you. b. Un a

homme man

est is

arrivé arrived

qui who

veut wants

te to.you:cl

parler. talk:inf

B. Restriction on extraposition from other pre-verbal constituents There is no contrast between CEP and other languages regarding RRC-extraposition from other pre-verbal constituents. Just like CEP, some Germanic languages allow for RRCextraposition from a preposed focus (see (20)), a wh-constituent (see (21)) and an emphatic/evaluative phrase (see (22)). Moreover, they do not allow RRCextraposition from topics (see (23)):4 (20)

Not even one painting did I see which would please Laura. (Smits 1988: 195)

(21)

Who do you know that you can really trust? (Kiss 2003: 110)

(22)

People lose their eyesight when they don’t take support of the STD’s and much more things can happen that are far worse than losing your eye sight. (http://genital-herpes-warts.com/genitalherpes/genitalherpes-6555.html)

(23)

a. I like micro brews that are located around the Bay Area. b. Micro brews that are located around the Bay Area, I like. c. *Micro brews, I like that are located around the Bay Area. (Kiss 2003: 110)

4 De Vries (2002: 244) reports the possibility of extraposition from topics in Dutch. However, there is a possible terminological confusion here between the traditional notion of topicalization and the topic position in a cartographic sense (see Rizzi 1997). The claim that RRC-extraposition can take place from topics must not be understood as extraposition from an aboutness topic. Rather, it concerns the extraposition from a constituent in first position. In fact, such constituents appear to be always affected by focus in some way or another. Therefore, it may be better to speak of focalization rather than topicalization in these cases.

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

83

5.2.3 Properties of RRC-extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese Turning now to the history of Portuguese, we will see that CEP and earlier stages of Portuguese behave differently with respect to RRC-extraposition. The historical data from Portuguese that support this view are presented below.5 5.2.3.1 Definiteness effect Unlike CEP, earlier periods of Portuguese allow for extraposed RRCs with strong noun phrases as antecedents,6 as illustrated in (24)–(25): (24)

falha aveo que forom i todos mas aquelle dia sem but that day without fail came that went there all ‘but the day everyone went there came without fail.’ (Piel and Nunes 1988; Demanda do Santo Graal; fifteenth century)

(25)

muytas de que se uertia muyta sangue. As chagas erã the sores were many of that se:cl shed a.lot.of blood ‘There were many sores from which a lot of blood was being shed.’ (Brocardo 2006; Livro de Linhagens do Conde D. Pedro; fourteenth century)

5.2.3.2 Restriction on extraposition from PPs Unlike CEP, earlier stages of Portuguese allow for extraposed RRCs with the object of a preposition as antecedent, as illustrated in (26)–(27): (26)

e logo lhj abríu de todo mão que sseu era and immediately to.him:cl opened of everything hand that his was ‘and immediately he gave him (¼ lit. opened hand of) everything that he had.’ (Martins 2001; Doc. Portugueses do Noroeste e da Região de Lisboa; year 1339)

5 The present research is framed within a qualitative approach (as opposed to a quantitative approach). It investigates a particular syntactic configuration, not yet properly identified in the literature on Portuguese, and explores its empirical and theoretical consequences. Hence, it does not offer a chronology of change, based on quantitative evidence. Given the lack of syntactic annotated Portuguese texts for the period between the thirteenth and the sixteenth centuries, the quantitative approach is left open for future research. Nevertheless, additional empirical evidence for the properties listed in 5.2.3.1–5.2.3.3 is provided in Cardoso (2010). 6 Brucart (1999) reports that extraposition from strong noun phrases is also possible in earlier stages of Spanish (see (i)).

(i)

Aquel decimos that say:1pl enfermos patients

ser be:inf

mejor better

médico, doctor

que that

mejor better

cura heals

y and

más more

sana. cures

‘We say that the better doctor is the one who heals (the diseases) better and cures more patients.’ (L. Granada, Introducción al símbolo de la fe, 1583, cited in Brucart 1999: 466)

84 (27)

Adriana Cardoso que en aquela hora morrera en que el vira estando that in that hour died:pmqp.3sg in that he saw:pmqp be:gen longe dele que lhi saira a alma do corpo. away from.him that to.him:cl fell.out:pmqp the soul of.the body ‘[and he realized that] he died in that hour in which he saw (being away from him) that his soul fell out of his body.’ (Mattos e Silva 1989: 766; Diálogos de São Gregório; fourteenth century)

5.2.3.3 Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions A. Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal subjects Unlike in CEP, in earlier stages of Portuguese, extraposed RRCs can take a subject in a pre-verbal position as antecedent, as illustrated in (28)–(29): (28)

se Alge~ A eles veer que diga que llj if someone to them come:fut.subj that says that to.him:cl eu Alguna cousa diuía I some thing owed ‘[And] if someone who says that I owed him something comes towards them . . . ’ (Martins 2001; Doc. Portugueses do Noroeste e da Região de Lisboa; year 1275)

(29)

que cayam. e cayades na pea que that fall:pres.subj.3pl and fall:pres.subj.2pl in.the punishment that filhos e netos deue~ a caer. que contra béénço de children and grandchildren must a fall:inf that against blessing of padre uéérem father come:fut.subj ‘[and I order] that they and you receive the punishment that the children and grandchildren who go against their father’s blessing must receive.’ (CIPM; Os Doc. em Português da Chancelaria de Afonso III; year 1278)

B. Restriction on extraposition from other pre-verbal constituents Earlier stages of Portuguese pattern with CEP in allowing extraposition from a preposed focus (see (30)), a wh-constituent (see (31)) and a preposed emphatic/evaluative phrase (see (32)): (30)

pois d’el-rrei dom Fernando ne~hu~ua cousa teemos que because of.the.king D. F. none thing have:1pl that contar até a morte d’este rrei dom Pedro. tell:inf until the death of.this king D. P. ‘( . . . ) because we do not have anything to tell about the king Dom Fernando until the death of the king Dom Pedro.’ (Macchi 1975; Fernão Lopes, Crónica de D. Fernando; fifteenth century)

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

85

(31)

Que caso pod’esse ser em que tanto sopesais? what case can.this be:inf in that so.much think:2pl ‘What case can this be that you think so much about?’ (Camões 1999; Gil Vicente, Processo de Vasco Abul; year 1516)

(32)

Muitos letrados sei eu (disse Solino) que não são moços many lettered know I said S. that not are young.boys ‘I know many lettered men (said Solino) who are not young.’ (TYC; Francisco Rodrigues Lôbo, Côrte na Aldeia e Noites de Inverno; year 1619)

By contrast, if a topic is involved, RRC-extraposition does not seem to be possible in earlier stages of Portuguese, at least in the corpus inspected thus far.7 C. New contexts of extraposition Besides the contexts seen so far, there is another important source of RRC-extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese: IP-scrambling, which consisted of the movement of various types of constituents to multiple specifier positions available in the IP domain (see Martins 2002). As expected, extraposition is also possible in these contexts. See (33):8 (33)

7

que llj eu Alguna cousa diuía que nõ seia that to.him:cl I some thing owed that not be:pres.subj escripto en Esta mãda written in this will ‘(And if there arrives someone who says) that I owed him something which is not written in this will ( . . . ).’ (Martins 2001; Doc. Portugueses do Noroeste e da Região de Lisboa; year 1275)

I found only one example that could be taken as involving RRC-extraposition from topic; see (i): assim está apercebida? (i) Esta barca onde vai agora/ que this boat where goes now QUE this.way is equipped (Camões 1999; Gil Vicente, Auto da Barca do Inferno; year 1517)

Note, however, that (i) may instead involve a coordinate clause, introduced by the coordinating conjunction que, meaning since, as: ‘Where does this boat goes, as it is so well equipped?’. In this respect, it is also worth pointing out that Martins (2002) suggests that topicalization (as opposed to focalization) may not be a grammatical option in earlier stages of Portuguese. 8 Note that the scrambling of alguma coisa ‘some thing’ in (33) is confirmed by the relative position of this constituent with respect to the verb and the clitic. According to Martins (2002), clitics in clauses with interpolation set the border between left-dislocated/focused constituents and scrambled constituents. Hence, in (33), because alguma coisa ‘some thing’ is interpolated (i.e. occurs between the proclitic and the verb), it is necessarily a scrambled constituent.

86

Adriana Cardoso

5.3 A non-uniform account of extraposition The main claim of this section is that extraposed RRCs in earlier stages of Portuguese differ in their structure and derivation from extraposed RRCs in CEP: the former are derived from specifying coordination (plus ellipsis) (De Vries 2002), whereas the latter are derived from stranding (Kayne 1994). Let us see how exactly this non-uniform approach to extraposition derives the contrasts under scrutiny. 5.3.1 Extraposition in CEP 5.3.1.1 The general proposal I assume, following Kayne (1994) and Bianchi (1999), that RRCs are generated by head-raising. The main idea underlying this proposal is that the head NP (the antecedent) of an RRC originates at the relativization site inside the subordinate clause and then rises to the left edge. The relative clause itself is generated as the complement of the so-called external determiner, with which the head NP associates after rising. A relative pronoun or operator is then to be analyzed as a relative determiner originally belonging to the internal head NP. See the representation in (34). (34)

[DP e.g.

D this

[CP [DPrel

NP[ book

Drel which

tNP]] C [IP . . . . . . tDP ]]] I read

I also take from Kayne (1994) the idea that RRC-extraposition is the result of VP-internal stranding. Under this approach, the antecedent is base-generated inside the RRC and undergoes leftward movement, stranding the RRC in situ, as schematically represented in (35). As will become clear in section 5.3.1.2, the movement of uma pessoa ‘a person’ in (35) can be explained by the syntactic representation of weak determiners as adjectives attached within the NP. (35)

tua procura] Encontrei [ uma pessoa]i ontem [ ti que estava à met:1sg a person yesterday that was at.the your search

The key assumption of my proposal is the following: extraposed RRCs in CEP always involve A’-movement of the antecedent, either via short scrambling (when the antecedent is in a post-verbal position) or via movement to the left periphery (when the antecedent is in a pre-verbal position). As an initial step towards a more precise formulation of my proposal, let us examine in more detail how RRC-extraposition can be derived from short-scrambling. Costa (1998, 2004) reports that CEP has a scrambling rule that allows objects to move from their base-position and adjoin to the VP. He also claims that the position of the scrambled object is indicated by its position relative to monosyllabic adverbs such as bem ‘well’, which mark the left edge of the VP. The idea is that objects to the right of monosyllabic adverbs are in their base position, whereas

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

87

objects to the left of these adverbs are scrambled. This is illustrated in (36), taken from Costa (2004: 40):9 (36)

a. O Paulo fala bem francês. [non-scrambled object] the P. speaks well French ‘Paulo speaks French well.’ b. O the

Paulo P.

fala speaks

francês French

bem. well

[scrambled object]

Costa also shows that objects are not the only constituents that may undergo scrambling: subjects of unaccusatives can also scramble, as illustrated in (37), taken from Costa (2004: 64). Here the adverb depressa ‘fast’ is taken as marking the left edge of the VP. (37)

a. Chegou depressa o Paulo. [non-scrambled subject] arrived fast the P. ‘Paulo arrived fast.’ b. Chegou arrived

o Paulo the P.

depressa. [scrambled subject] fast

My claim is that the possibility of scrambling can be extended to subjects in Spec,VP.10 There are three arguments in favour of this hypothesis. Argument 1 – Distribution of adverbs A subject base-generated in Spec,VP may also surface in a post-verbal position, to the left of the monosyllabic adverb bem ‘well’, as illustrated in (38). If we want to maintain that (i) the monosyllabic adverb bem ‘well’ marks the left-edge of VP and (ii) the post-verbal subject is VP-internal (Costa 1998, 2004), then we must conclude that the subjects of unergative verbs can also scramble.11 (38)

a. Ninguém jogou nada. ‘No one played anything’ b. Jogou o Sporting bem até aos últimos dez minutos. played the S. well until the last ten minutes ‘Sporting played well until the last ten minutes.’ c. Depois o Benfica reagiu e marcou dois golos. ‘Then Benfica reacted and scored two goals.’

9

Remark that CEP displays V-to-I movement, which derives the order Verb–Adverb/Object in (36). To my knowledge, this issue has not been previously addressed in the literature on CEP, but similar proposals have been discussed for other languages; see Broekhuis (2007) for Dutch/German and Takano (1998) for English. 11 Note that (38b.) is also possible with the subject occurring to the right of the manner adverb bem ‘well’. 10

Adriana Cardoso

88

Argument 2 – Semantic effects When indefinite noun phrases are involved, the scrambled and non-scrambled orders can be semantically distinguished. More precisely, unscrambled indefinite objects may have a cardinal reading, whereas scrambled objects necessarily have a presuppositional reading (in the sense of Diesing 1992). See, for instance, the contrast in (39). The unscrambled object in (39a.) preferably has a cardinal, non-presuppositional reading; under this interpretation, João can actually speak only one language. This contrasts with the scrambled order in (39b.); here the indefinite object can only have a presuppositional reading, which can be paraphrased as a partitive (‘one of the languages’). (39)

a. O João fala bem uma the J. speaks well one ‘João speaks one language well.’

língua. language

b. O João fala uma língua bem. the J. speaks one language well ‘João speaks one language well (the other languages he speaks very badly).’ Importantly, the same semantic effects are found when the subject of an unergative verb is involved, as in (40). (40)

a. Dançaram bem oito concorrentes. danced well eight competitors ‘Eight competitors danced well.’ b. Dançaram oito concorrentes bem. danced eight competitors well Eight competitors danced well; (the other competitors did not dance so well).’

This is a welcome result: if scrambling is involved in (39) and (40), we expect that the same semantic effects are obtained.12 Argument 3 – The trigger for scrambling It has been proposed in the literature that scrambling is a movement to Spec,AgrOP driven by the requirement of accusative feature-checking (see de Hoop 1992 i.a.). Under this assumption, subject scrambling would be unexpected because the noun phrase in Spec,VP does not have an accusative feature to be checked by the complex V-Agro. Fortunately, this problem does not arise: Costa (1998, 2004) shows that scrambling is not a case-driven movement. One of the arguments he provides in favour of this idea is precisely the possibility of subject scrambling (involving the subject of unaccusatives, as in (37)). 12

For similar results concerning object and subject shift in German/Dutch see Broekhuis (2007).

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

89

Alternatively, Costa (1998, 2004) argues in favour of a prosodically/discoursedriven approach to scrambling, according to which scrambling is used to create appropriate focus configurations: namely to make the element bearing the sentence’s nuclear stress escape it (see Reinhart 1995). Under this approach, the scrambling of subjects can be treated on a par with objects: if scrambling is prosodically/discoursedriven, there is a priori no reason to preclude the scrambling of a constituent in Spec,VP. Having made this short excursus into the properties of short-scrambling in CEP, let us turn again to extraposition. The idea that extraposition may also involve shortscrambling is supported by two different arguments: Argument 1 – Distribution of adverbs The antecedent of an extraposed-RRC may appear to the left of the monosyllabic adverb bem ‘well’, as illustrated in (41). This indicates that uma candidatura ‘one application’ has undergone short-scrambling. (41)

a. Não analisaste com atenção nenhuma candidatura. ‘You did not analyse any of the applications carefully.’ b. Analisei uma candidatura bem que foi proposta pela analysed:1sg one application well that was submitted by.the Universidade de Lisboa. University of L. ‘I analysed one application that was submitted by the University of Lisbon well (¼ thoroughly); (the others I actually did not analyse very carefully).’

Argument 2 – Semantic effects When the antecedent of a non-extraposed RRC is indefinite, it may have a cardinal reading. However, when extraposition is involved, the antecedent necessarily has a presuppositional reading. This is illustrated in (42): (42a.) is compatible with the reading that there is only one homeless person in my neighborhood, whereas (42b.) necessarily presupposes that there is more than one homeless person there. (42)

a. Há no meu bairro um sem-abrigo que não pede has in.the my neighborhood one homeless that not asks dinheiro. money ‘In my neighborhood there is a homeless person who does not ask for money.’ b. Há um has a dinheiro. money

sem-abrigo no meu homeless in.the my

bairro neighborhood

que that

não not

pede asks

90

Adriana Cardoso

Putting things together, the derivation of an extraposed RRC involving shortscrambling proceeds as follows: (i) the antecedent is generated inside the RRC; (ii) the antecedent undergoes short-scrambling and adjoins to the VP after raising. This is sketched in (43), where the antecedent is the subject of an unergative verb and the intervening element is an adverb (corresponding, for instance, to a sentence such as (8a.) above): (43)

[IP V [VP S [VP adverb [VP ts RRC tv ]]]]

When short-scrambling is involved, only adverbs and PPs (see, for example, (7) above) can intervene between the antecedent and the extraposed RRC. These intervening elements can be either adjuncts (as in (7) above) or complements of the verb (as in (44)). (44)

Maria que foi Dei um livro à gave:1sg a book to.the M. that was ‘I gave Maria a book that was written by me.’

escrito written

por by

mim. me

To derive these contexts, I assume that (i) adverbs and PP adjuncts that surface as intervening material are left-adjoined to the VP (Barbiers 1995) and that (ii) double complement constructions are base-generated with the order V-PP-DO and the V-DO-PP order involves the scrambling of the object over the PP (Takano 1998). This requires that on its way to the scrambled position, the antecedent crosses over adverbs and PPs (either adjuncts or complements), stranding the RRC in situ.13 5.3.1.2 Deriving the properties of RRC-extraposition in CEP Let us now briefly see how the theoretical apparatus put forth in the preceding section can account for the properties of contemporary RRC-extraposition outlined in section 5.2.1: A. Definiteness effect As already mentioned in section 5.2.1, extraposed RRCs in CEP can take weak noun phrases as their antecedent but not strong noun phrases. This property can be explained if we assume, following Bowers (1988), that strong and weak noun phrases differ in their structure: strong quantifiers are of category D, whereas weak quantifiers are adjectives and attach within NP. Extending Bowers’ proposal to the raising analysis of relative clauses, I assume, in line with Kayne (1994) and Lee (2007), that strong determiners are located in the external determiner whereas weak determiners are within NP. This straightforwardly explains why extraposed RRCs can take only weak noun phrases as antece-

13 For reasons of space, I will refrain from developing this analysis further. See Cardoso (2010) for more details.

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

91

dents: weak noun phrases can be moved leftward as a constituent, whereas strong noun phrases cannot, because there is no constituent that includes the strong determiner and the noun phrase but excludes the RRC, as sketched in (45): (45)

[DP strong determiner [CP [NP [weak determiner] [N’ . . . ]]i [C’ [IP . . . ti . . . ]]]]

B. Restriction on extraposition from PPs In CEP, RRC-extraposition is not allowed if the antecedent is the object of a preposition. Again, this restriction is straightforwardly derived under the standard assumption that movement only applies to constituents. As sketched in (46), the preposition and the noun phrase in Spec, CP do not form a constituent (excluding the RRC); as a result, they cannot undergo leftward movement, stranding the RRC in situ.14 (46)

[PP P [DP [CP NPi [C’ C [IP . . . ti . . . ]]]]]

C. Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions In CEP, extraposed RRCs can take post-verbal subjects as antecedents but not pre-verbal subjects as antecedents. Additionally, extraposed RRCs can take wh-constituents, preposed foci and preposed emphatic/evaluative phrases as antecedents but not topicalized constituents. I assume that the explanation of these contrasts rests upon the semantic interpretation of the antecedent. More precisely, I claim that extraposition in CEP obeys the Interpretative Principle given in (47): (47) Interpretative Principle The antecedent of an extraposed RRC must occur in a position non-ambiguously interpreted as non-topic (in Kuroda’s (2005) sense).15 The fact that the restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions is semantically motivated should not come as a surprise because several authors (Duarte 1997, Martins 1994, Martins in prep.) have already observed that word order in CEP reflects both information structure and the contrast between categorical and thetic judgements (in the sense of Kuroda 1965, 2005).16

14 As one of the reviewers points out, the fact that P þ NP do not form a constituent in (46) could be circumvented, under a Kaynian analysis, by a remnant-movement approach. In this case, it would be sufficient to move the IP to the left of the PP and then move P þ NP somewhere further to the left under remnant-movement. Under this view, what would have to be blocked is the extraction of an IP out of the PP in CEP. 15 Kuroda (2005) proposes that a topic is a constituent that expresses an aboutness relation, interpreted as familiar, presupposed, and part of the common ground. 16 Based on the Brentano-Marty theory of judgements, Kuroda distinguishes two types of judgements: categorical/predicational versus thetic/descriptive. A predicational/categorical judgement is a cognitive act of attributing a predicate to a subject, whereas a thetic/descriptive judgement is grounded, in its basic form, on perception.

92

Adriana Cardoso

C1 Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal subjects The Interpretative Principle in (47) derives this restriction as follows. Assuming the distinction between categorical and thetic/descriptive judgements originally proposed by Kuroda (1965), we conclude that Spec,IP is an ambiguous position in CEP; it can be filled by topic elements (i.e. the subject of predication in sentences expressing categorical judgements), but it can also be filled by non-topic elements (i.e. the subject of a sentence expressing thetic/descriptive judgements). In contrast, the specifier and adjunct positions of VP are non-ambiguous positions: they can only be filled by non-topic elements. Hence, in accordance with the Interpretative Principle in (47), when the subject is the antecedent of an extraposed RRC, it must stay in a post-verbal position to be non-ambiguously interpreted as non-topic.17 C2 Restriction on extraposition from constituents in the left periphery The Interpretative Principle in (47) can also explain why extraposition cannot take place from topics. Assuming a split-CP approach (see Rizzi 1997), according to which there are different functional projections especially dedicated to single discourse functions (e.g. topic and focus), the position occupied by a topic constituent is non-ambiguously interpreted as topic. Therefore, RRC-extraposition is ruled out by the Interpretative Principle in (47). Conversely, the position occupied by the preposed foci, wh-constituents, and emphatic/evaluative phrases is non-ambiguously interpreted as non-topic; hence, the possibility of extraposition from these constituents is straightforwardly derived. 5.3.2 Extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese 5.3.2.1 The general proposal Building on ideas by Koster (2000), De Vries (2002) proposes that extraposition involves coordination. He argues that besides the traditional types of coordination (additive, disjunctive, and adversative), there is another type called specifying coordination that is involved, for instance, in extraposition, appositions, and parentheticals (see De Vries 2009 for a general overview). In all of these constructions, the second conjunct provides an alternative description, an example, or a property of the first conjunct.

17 One of the reviewers argues that generally scrambled elements are of topical nature, so if extraposition from a post-verbal subject depends on scrambling, we would expect frequent violations of (47). This idea is built under the assumption, also found in Costa (1998, 2004), that scrambling serves to remove unfocused material from the focus domain. However, in Cardoso (2010), I show that in CEP scrambling can also be used to create specific discourse effects (namely, to place the most prominent constituent in the rightmost position within the clause-internal space). In this sense, a scrambled constituent may be contained in a focus domain. This analysis receives some typological support from the so-called focusscrambling in Dutch, which involves contrastive focus on a scrambled constituent (see Costa 2004: 69).

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

93

Assuming Munn’s (1993) and Kayne’s (1994) analysis of coordination (see also Johannessen 1998), De Vries claims that RRC-extraposition is obtained according to the scheme in (48), where the antecedent is generated within the first conjunct and the extraposed RRC is generated within the second conjunct of a coordinate structure.18 (48)

[CoP [ . . . antecedent . . . ] [ Co [ . . . RRC . . . ]]]

Under this account, the coordinated conjuncts are of the same category. The first conjunct may range from VP to CP, depending on the position of the antecedent. The second conjunct has the same categorial status as the first conjunct; it repeats the material contained in the first conjunct, adding the extraposed RRC in its canonical position. Then the repeated material is phonologically deleted.19 This is illustrated in (49), where the antecedent of the extraposed RRC is a direct object; here, both conjuncts are represented as involving the AgrOP-level of projection (under the assumption that in Dutch the object moves to [spec,AgrOP], for reasons of case).20 (49) [CP Ik heb . . . [CoP [AgrOP-1 de man gezien] [Co I have the man seen [AgrOP-2 [DP de man die zijn tas verloor] gezien]]]] the man who his bag lost seen 5.3.2.2. Deriving the properties of RRC-extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese Let us now see how the specifying coordination (plus ellipsis) analysis can account for the properties of extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese: A Definiteness effect In earlier stages of Portuguese, extraposed RRCs could take strong noun phrases as their antecedent. This property can be straightforwardly derived using the approach adopted here because there is no movement relationship between the visible antecedent and the extraposed RRC. As illustrated in (50), the strong noun phrase aquelle dia ‘that day’ in the first conjunct is a constituent: it is detached from the relative clause and base-generated in the first conjunct of the coordinate structure. In contrast, the strong noun phrase aquelle dia ‘that day’ in 18 The structure in (48) involves an abstract coordinator that is semantically specialized: it constitutes an asymmetric relationship of specification between the two conjuncts. Koster (2000) symbolically represents this relator using a colon; De Vries (2002) employs an ampersand plus a colon ‘&:’. Here, I will simply use the more general denotation Co for the coordinative head. 19 For more details regarding the conditions that govern the phonological deletion in the second conjunct, see De Vries (2002, 2009). 20 To account for the intricacies of extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese, this analysis may require some minor technical adjustments. Because I cannot go into this discussion here, I will hold to De Vries’ (2002) original proposal in the analysis put forth in section 5.3.2. See Cardoso (2010) for more details.

94

Adriana Cardoso

the second conjunct is not a constituent (as there is no constituent that includes the determiner and the noun and excludes the RRC). However, this is not a problem because it is the DP (containing the antecedent and the RRC) that undergoes leftward movement. (50) [ mas [CoP [IP [DP aquelle but that aquelle dia [ Co [IP [DP that day

dia]i day que that

sem falha aveo ti] without fail came forom i todos]i sem falha aveo ti]]]] went there all without fail came

B. Restriction on extraposition from PPs In earlier stages of Portuguese, extraposed RRCs could take the object of prepositions as their antecedent. The same line of reasoning applies here: as illustrated (51), the PP de mui poucos ‘of very few’ in the first conjunct is a constituent because it is detached from the relative clause and basegenerated in the first conjunct of the coordinate structure. In contrast, de mui poucos ‘of very few’ in the second conjunct is not a constituent; however, this is not a problem because it is the PP (containing the RRC) that undergoes leftward movement. (51) [CP que [CoP [IP [PP de mui poucos]i sabemos ti] that of very few know:1pl [ Co [IP [PP de mui poucos que bebessem vinho] of very few that drink:imperf.subj wine

i

sabemos ti]]]] know:1pl

C. Restriction on extraposition from pre-verbal positions Unlike in CEP, extraposed RRCs in earlier stages of Portuguese can take pre-verbal subjects as antecedents. This can be derived by resorting to IP level coordination; see (52): (52)

[CoP [IP S V DO] Co [IP S RRC V DO]]

From a comparative perspective, the fact that CEP does not allow RRC-extraposition from pre-verbal subjects is surprising. As shown in section 5.3.1.2, the explanation for the pattern of ungrammaticality in CEP depends upon the Interpretative Principle in (47). RRC-extraposition from Spec, IP is not allowed because this position is ambiguously filled by topic and non-topic elements. Apparently, nothing prevents RRC extraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese from being subject to the same semantic restrictions as CEP. However, as shown above, there is strong empirical evidence suggesting that earlier stages of Portuguese (and other languages) allow for it. Somewhat tentatively, I would like to suggest that CEP and earlier stages of Portuguese may resort to different strategies to resolve the ambiguity expressed in (47). Whereas in CEP the ambiguity associated with Spec, IP is resolved syntactically and prosodically (through subject inversion), in earlier stages of Portuguese, it may

Extraposition of restrictive relative clauses in Portuguese

95

be resolved only prosodically. In this case, a constituent in Spec, IP can be unambiguously interpreted as non-topic if it is prosodically marked by a pitch accent.21 This may suggest that there is a language split as far as the codification of semantic information is concerned. Some languages codify the topic/non-topic status of the subject prosodically and syntactically (as may be the case of CEP), whereas other languages (and different stages of the same language) may codify it only prosodically (as seems to be the case for earlier stages of Portuguese).

5.4 The loss of extraposed RRCs generated by specifying coordination According to the analysis outlined above, the extraposed RRCs in earlier stages of Portuguese are generated by specifying coordination (plus ellipsis), whereas the extraposed RRCs in CEP are generated by stranding. Keeping in mind Lightfoot’s (1991 i.a.) insights into the relation between language change and language acquisition, this implies that positive evidence triggering the specifying coordination structure ceased to be available to the learners. I submit that such evidence is found in the contexts of RRC-extraposition involving a strong noun phrase or the object of a preposition as antecedent. When exposed to these contexts, children in earlier stages of Portuguese knew that the antecedent was externally (and not internally) generated because no movement chain could be established between the visible antecedent and an RRC-internal position. Capitalizing on what we know about the history of Portuguese, I would like to suggest that the relevant contexts of extraposition were attested robustly in the primary linguistic data until the sixteenth century. After this period, their frequency decreased significantly because of an independent change that took place in the history of Portuguese: the loss of IP-scrambling. Martins (2002) reports that earlier stages of Portuguese displayed medial-scrambling, which consisted of the movement of various types of constituents (DPs, PPs, APs, AdvPs) to multiple specifier positions selected by the functional head IP. I have also shown in section 5.2.3 that IP-scrambling generates contexts of extraposition, as illustrated in (33). Based on these assumptions, I tentatively claim that with the loss of IP-scrambling after the sixteenth century there was a decrease in the frequency of extraposition contexts in general. As a result, Portuguese started displaying short-scrambling only, which consisted of the movement of noun phrases (either subjects or direct objects) to a VP-adjoined position. In this environment, the linear distance between the antecedent and the extraposed RRC decreased and, more importantly, PPs ceased to occur in a scrambled position. Given the loss of an important trigger of the specifying coordination analysis, children converged on a new grammar. As 21

Here, I assume that the kind of prosodic prominence that serves to mark focused constituents is the pitch accent (see, e.g. Avesani and Vayra 2003).

96

Adriana Cardoso

schematically represented in (53), in the new grammar, the visible antecedent is analyzed as being generated in an RRC-internal position and the RRC-extraposition as involving the rising of the antecedent (dispensing with the coordinate part of the structure). (53)

[ S V [CoP [VP Obj adverb/PP ] [ Co + [S V [VP Obj adverb/PP [tobj RC] ]]

[VP Obj RC adverb/PP ]]]]

5.5 Final remarks On the basis of some comparative evidence, I have shown that RRC-extraposition is subject to variation in both the synchronic and the diachronic dimension. As far as Portuguese is concerned, the empirical evidence discussed here shows that RRCextraposition in earlier stages of Portuguese is to a large extent Germanic-like, unlike CEP. From a theoretical point of view, I argued for a non-uniform approach to extraposition, according to which extraposition involves two different syntactic types. In this scenario, languages (and different stages in the development of the same language) may demonstrate divergence with respect to the specific type(s) they display. Ultimately, this amounts to saying that the concept of extraposition is descriptively useful (in unifying a variety of apparently related constructions), but lacks explanatory force because it does not unequivocally correspond to a construction-type.

6 Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese A diachronic perspective1 ILZA RIBEIRO AND MARIA A. TORRES MORAIS

6.1 Introduction This chapter examines the nature and structure of finite subordinate clauses in Portuguese, in which two complementizers are realized (que1 and que2). Our objective is to contribute to the research in the so-called sentence left periphery, in particular, to the assumption that the complementizer system consists of distinct functional heads, coding very different types of features (cf. Rizzi (1997) and many subsequent works, among them, Benincà and Poletto (2004), Benincà (2004), Roberts (2004), Aboh (2006), Paoli (2007), Ledgeway (2008), Mascarenhas (2007), Demonte and Soriano (2009)). Following Rizzi’s ‘cartographic approach’, we adopt the idea that the left periphery of the clause expresses a typology of positions, defined by a system of functional heads and their projections. This system is delimited upward by Force, the head expressing various clause types: declarative, interrogative, exclamative, etc., and downward by Finiteness, the head distinguishing between finite and non-finite clauses. Rizzi (1997) emphasizes that the need for two distinct positions in the complementizer system becomes apparent when the Topic/Focus Field is activated. Besides that, we assume Rizzi’s layered CP with the refinements proposed by Benincà (2004) and Benincà and Poletto (2004) in the sense that Topic and Focus are fields (a set of projections). Topics, for example, can only be inserted to the left of Focus. Looking for purely syntactic evidence to identify projections and fields, the last authors also propose that the Focus Field hosts elements that are moved with 1

We would like to thank the comments and questions from the audience of the XI Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference at University of Campinas, Brazil, and the suggestions from the two anonymous reviewers. All remaining errors are entirely ours.

98

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

operator-like properties—contrastive and informational focus, and the interrogative wh. Furthermore, the area of topics is articulated in two distinct fields, with distinct syntactic properties. The higher field for merged topics is FrameP. In these terms, Italian Hanging Topic (HT) and Scene Setting Adverbials are typical topics, in the Frame Field. On the other side, Left Dislocation (LD) and topics with listed interpretation are typical topics, in the Topic Field. The structure of the left periphery we have in mind is outlined in (1) below: (1)

ForceP [Frame Field (HT) / (scene setting)] [Topic Field (LD) / (list interpretation) ] [Focus Field (Contrastive F) / (Information F) / wh] FinP TP (SVO-ADV)

Another important point in the system is that the Frame Field and the Topic Field are not V-related; it means that the verb does not move to this position. The topicalized constituents in Topic or Frame Field are base generated constituents (external merge). The Focus Field is different: it is specialized for constituents that have to move there (internal merge). So, Focus and Fin are V-related positions: this means that there is obligatory verb movement to these positions. We also accept Roberts’ (2004) idea that the V2 phenomenon results from the requirement that Fin must have a phonological realization (Fin* in the notation of Roberts 2001). Based on this, we propose that V-movement to Fin is operative in Old Portuguese (OldP), with the additional idea of movement of Fin to Focus, if FocusP is activated. Doubling-que in complement clauses is another strategy to satisfy the realization requirements by Fin. So, we also argue that Fin*, in the context of completive sentences, can be satisfied by three strategies: V-to-Fin; Fin-to-Force; merge of que2 in Fin. Brazilian Portuguese (BP) is not a V2 language. However, when split-CP is active, Fin* is realized by merge of que/Ø complementizer, never by V-to-Fin. The null complementizer is an innovative option in Portuguese history, mainly in written patterns. This chapter is organized as follows: First, we present some root V2 properties of OldP, in order to establish the pattern of complement clauses in general and of the doubling-que complement clauses in particular. We intend to show that in embedded complement clauses, the same root properties are allowed. Second, we analyze finite complement clauses. We will concentrate on the three forms of Fin feature realization. The first one results from movement of Fin to Force; the second one, from movement of V to Fin; in the third option, the insertion of que2 satisfies the requirement of finite Fin’s realization. This is the main property of complement clauses with doubling-que. Finally, we discuss doubling-que complement clauses in BP. In this language there is no requirement of Fin*’s phonological realization by V movement. However, when the left periphery is activated, there is variation between merging of que/Ø complementizer into Fin. This chapter tries to show three points: (i) Historical Portuguese presents evidence of split CP into Force and Fin in finite embedded declaratives; (ii) There is a competition between two strategies that satisfy the

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

99

requirement of Fin*—movement of V to Fin* and merge of que into Fin*—what can be in the origin of the loss of V2 property in OldP; (iii) The nature and structure of doubling-que in OldP and Modern BP complement sentences stress important differences and similarities between both languages.

6.2 Basic facts about root sentences in OldP We can observe a root sentence pattern in OldP data,2 if we assume that the superficial array of constituents expresses the interplay of three operations: (i) movement of focused constituents to Spec,FocP; (ii) movement of thematic constituents to Spec,FinP; iii) merge of topic constituents in FrameP/TopicP. Syntactic evidence is observed in several studies on word order of constituents in Medieval Romance (e.g. Salvi (1989, 1990), Benincà (1989, 1995), Ribeiro (1994, 1995a, 2009). For example, the VS word order, where S is strictly adjacent to V, preceding both verbal arguments and adjuncts. Or the clitic position, assuming that proclisis only occurs when Spec,FocP and Spec,FinP are phonologically realized. If Spec,FinP is not activated, enclisis is categorical. The examples in (2) show the movement of V to Fin/FocusP head. Also they show that different types of constituents can satisfy V2: complement objects (2a.), prepositional phrases (2b.), and predicates (2c.). When the subject is lexically realized, it is always in an immediate post-verbal position (the subject is italicized in the examples below). This last property is clear evidence that the verb is above IP.3 (2) a. E [FinP estes dizimos quis [IP Nostro Senhor tv tobj pera as And these tithes want-pst-3sg Our Lord for the-pl (FR-thirteenth) eygreyas fazer]]4 church-pl to-do ‘And Our Lord wanted these tithes to build the churches.’ Com tanta paceença sofria [FinP tPP tv [IP ela tv esta with so-much patience suffered-pst-3sg she this (DSG-fourteenth) enfermidade tPP ]]] illness ‘She suffered this disease with so much patience.’

b. [FocP

2 The Old Portuguese analysis is based on collected data of the following documents: a) Os Diálogos de São Gregório (DSG); b) Um Flos Sanctorum: XIV (FLOS); c) Foro Real (FR); d) A Demanda do Santo Graal (GRAAL); e) Crônica de D. Pedro (CDP); f) Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha (CPVC); g) data presented by Ribeiro (1995a, 1996, 1997, 1998). 3 Notice that when Focus is activated we are not sure if the focused constituent passes through the Spec,FinP or goes directly to its final position (cf. 2b–c). 4 An anonymous reviewer questions why the object is not a topic in TopP, given that the subject should be closer to Spec,FinP than the object and it seems equally pragmatically unmarked. Observe that the theme of the narration is the obligatory payment of tributes in different religions. The anaphoric object in Spec,FinP ensure the continuity of the theme. This would not be possible if the DP subject were in Spec, Fin. In this case, the theme would be changed. In fact, deictic DPs are common in Spec,FinP with this pragmatic function. Besides that, if the direct object were in the Topic Field, the presence of a resumptive clitic would be obligatory (cf. ex. 6).

100

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais c. E [FocP limpho és [FinP tadj tv [IP pro tv tadj desta razom ante Deus]]] clear be-prs-2sg of-this reason before God (FLOS-fourteenth) ‘When it comes to this sin, you are all clear before God.’

The SV order can also satisfy V2, as shown in (3). Notice that the subject is contrastive focus. We assume that the subject moves to Spec,FocP. (3) [FocP Maestre Alexandre meteu] . . . [este escandalo aqui] (FLOS-fourteenth) Maestre Alexandre put-pst-3sg this scandal here ‘It was Maestre Alexandre that was responsible for this scandal.’ So we are considering that only focused constituents can be in the Focus Field; thematized arguments may be located in Spec,FinP if they are pragmatically unmarked in some sense, that is, if they are not focused or merged into a Frame/Topic Field. Thus, we assume an analysis which incorporates aspects of Benincà (2004) and Roberts’ (2004) proposals. For the first one, in Medieval Romance languages, thematized and focused constituents satisfy V2 in FocusP; for the second one, V2 is always the result of movement of V to Fin and of some constituent to Spec,FinP. We admit a version of both of them, considering that the FinP head is not capable of checking the [ þ focus] feature of a focused constituent. The linear V2 effect is not categorical in OldP; V>2 sequences can be found in all OldP written texts. We take up again questions related to V>2, presented by Ribeiro (1995a/b), considering here that the V>2 constructions result from the merge of discursively prominent constituents in one of the Frame and Topic fields (Benincà 2004). Because they are non-V-related positions, they do not interfere with the V2 property.5 (4)

a. E [FrameP quando chegaron ao rio,] [FocP tan aginha o and when arrive-pst-3pl to-the river too quickly it-acc passaron como se . . . [FinP . . . . . . (DSG-fourteenth) pass-pst-3pl as if ‘And when they arrived at the river, they passed through it so quickly as if . . . .’ b. e [TopP estas dobras que el-rrei dom Pedro mandava lavrar,] and those coins that the-king don Pedro order-past-3sg to-mint hüu marco] one mark (CDP-fourteenth) ‘And from those coins that the king D. Pedro ordered to mint, fifty made one mark’. [FocP

cinquoenta fifty

d’ ellas faziam ] [FinP . . . . . . of-them make-pst-3pl

5 For studies of other Medieval Romance varieties, cf. Salvi 1990, 1993; Benincà 1995, 2004; Benincà and Poletto 2004; Ledgeway 2008, among others.

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

101

c. [TopP

Aqueste homen] [FocP muito alonjado he] [FinP . . . daquestes This man very distant be-prs-3sg from-these que nós ora veemos] (DSG-fourteenth) that we now see-prs-1pl ‘This man is definitely much more elevated than these that we see now’.

Notice that it is still possible to maintain a V2 analysis of these examples, if V2 is not understood as a superficial descriptive label, but, instead, as a syntactic constraint which requires the finite verb to raise to the FinP head, and take a step further to FocusP head, if there is a focus feature to check. A further movement operation fronts the focused constituent to Spec,FocP. Other pragmatically salient constituents may be merged into the functional projections in the C position, FrameP or TopicP (cf. Benincà 2004, Benincà and Poletto 2004). So the italicized constituents in (4) are all candidates to merge into Frame/Topic: in (4a.) there is a scene setting temporal adverbial sentence; in (4b.) there is a Hanging Topic; in (4c.) a Left Dislocation subject. None of them interferes with the V2 property, because they are not Vrelated. The checking of the categorical feature [ þ topic] is realized with a null head (Ø), a null counterpart of a topic associated with a morpheme in other languages, such as d« in Saramaccan (cf. Aboh 2006). We follow Benincà’s (2004: 270) generalization for all Medieval Romance dialects: ‘a direct object can be moved leaving a trace, incompatible with a resumptive clitic, only in the projection immediately preceding the head to which a Verb moves in main clauses . . . .’.6 We take this position to be either Spec,FinP, for a non-focused object, or Spec,FocP, if the object is focused. If there is a clitic in this construction, it is always related to another argument, and it is always proclitic (cf. 5). (5)

fazia [IP ele tcl þ v tobj pera E [FinP esto lhis And this them-dat do-pst-3sg he for

lho them-dat þ him-acc

agalardoar Deus ]] (DSG-fourteenth) to-reward God ‘And he used to do this to them so God would reward him for this.’ Object arguments which merge into TopicP are analysed as Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD). They generally occur in constructions with an activated Focus Field; the resumptive clitic is always proclitic (cf. 6). (6) [TopP A verdade daquesta profecia] [FocP mais claramente a The truth of-this prophecy more clearly it-acc (DSG-fourteenth) veemos] [FinP cadadia . . . ] see-prs-1pl every day ‘Every day we more clearly see the truth of that prophecy’. 6

Cf. also Salvi (1989, 1990), Benincà (1989), and Ribeiro (1995a).

102

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

However, a CLLD object merged into Spec,TopicP may co-occur with enclisis, similarly to what happens in other kinds of left dislocation in OldP, as the following examples show: eu ora quero contar,] [FinP OP (7) [TopP Esto, Pedro, que ti This, Pedro, that you-dat I now want-prs-1sg to-tell, aprendi-[IP o duu homen muito honrado]] (DSG-fourteenth) learn-pst-3sg-it-acc from-a man very honoured ‘What I want to tell you now, Pedro, I’ve learned from a very honoured man’. In these cases, FocusP is never activated, and the enclisis is categorical. If V is always in Fin and the dislocated constituents are in the Frame/Topic Field, Spec,FinP may be realized by a thematic null operator. Notice that (7) occurs in a discursive context of narration of miracles realized by a holy man, with emphasis on the speaker’s desires to tell the story: I want to tell, I learnt, I should not be quiet. It behaves, then, as in coordinated clauses like the one in (8), in which the subject of the second coordinate is not realized: (8)

Eu entendo esto e maravilho-me do que I understand-prs-1sg this and amaze-prs-1sg-myself of-the what ouço (DSG-fourteenth) hear-prs-1sg ‘I understand this and I am amazed by what I hear’.

We do not have much to say about these types of clauses in this chapter, except that it may result of a null operator (Ribeiro 1995a), or as a means to get a strong textual cohesion (Fontana 1993, Ledgeway 2008). We can observe that there is a subject continuity in all the examples in (7) and (8) above, realized as a null thematic constituent in Spec,FinP. Additional evidence that the dislocated constituent in the constructions with enclisis is not in a spec-head relation in Focus/Fin comes from the possibility of a parenthetical clause between the constituent and the verb.7 (9)

E [FrameP depois que esto prometi] [XP dezia aquel pecador] And after that this promise-pst-1sg say-pst-3sg that sinner me da eigreja]] (FLOS-fourteenth) [FinP OP say-[IP leave-pst-1sg me-dat of-the church ‘After I promised that, said the sinner, I left the church’.

So, merge of null OP/Topic in Spec,FinP is a strategy available when there is continuity of subject or of another thematized constituent. As we said, the enclisis is mandatory in this type of construction.8 7 Following Cardinaletti’s 2004 analysis, we assume that parenthetical cannot occur in contexts where strict spec/head agreement is required (cf. footnote 13). 8 Regarding the clitic positions, we assume a modified version of Ribeiro (1995a). We consider that the clitic is non-V-related in OldP, as indicated by interpolation. In a broad sense, we assume that the clitic occupies a position in the periphery of the split CP ( . . . FinP ClP TP), as proposed by a number of authors. In our analysis, V movement to Fin/Focus is independent of clitic movement, in the sense that V does not

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

103

Having established the fundamental characteristics of root sentences of OldP, we now discuss some properties of embedded complement clauses, with focus on the doubling-que.9

6.3 Basic facts about embedded sentences in OldP The main thesis we would like to defend here is that there are three ways to satisfy Fin*’s phonological requirement in embedded complement clauses, in OldP: (i) Fin to Force; (ii) V to Fin, when the left periphery is activated; (iii) merge of que in Fin. 6.3.1 Fin to Force This operation occurs when the left periphery (namely, FrameP, TopicP, FocusP) is not activated. In this case, the embedded sentences have only one realization of the complementizer que. They resemble other embedded clauses with interpolation/scrambling, indicating that the finite verb can follow these constituents. In the examples in (10) there are interpolated/scrambled constituents between the clitic and the verb: the negation in (10a.); the indirect object, subject, and direct object in (10b.); objects and negation in (10c.). (10)

non dissessen a nengüü) (DSG-fourteenth) a. mandou que o order-pst-3sg that it-acc not tell-sbj-3pl to anybody ‘He ordered them not to tell it to anyone’. b. que diga que llj eu Algluna cousa diuía who might-say that him-dat I any-one thing owed (from Martins 2002: 244; 1275) ‘[anybody] who might say that I owed him something (i.e. any one thing)’. c. nõ possamos negar ( . . . ) que as del nõ Recebemos not can-pst-1pl deny ( . . . ) that them-acc of-him not receive-pst-1pl (from Martins 1994: 179; NO, 1365) ‘So that we couldn’t deny that we haven’t received them from him’.

In this kind of complementizer, either Force or Fin is realized as a syncretic head (11a.), or the complementizer is generated in Fin and moves to Force (11b.).10 pass through ClP in its way to the head Fin/Focus, which results in enclisis. Proclisis results from the independent movement of the head that hosts the clitic to Fin/Focus, whenever Spec,Fin/Focus is lexically occupied. For more details, see Ribeiro (1995a). Also, Old Portuguese data show that the relationship between Focus and clitic is much closer in some dialects, as illustrated below: (i) E a mha cabeça, já a el tem metuda na sa boca (DSG-fourteenth) And the my head already it-acc he have put.inside-part in its-fem. mouth ‘And he (the lion) has already had my head in his mouth’ In this example, the clitic is in Focus, the head of FocusP. Unfortunately there is not much on this subject in the Old Portuguese literature. Our evidence shows that the clitic, by itself, can verify/check the features of Focus. 9 For a discussion about word order facts and V2 phenomenon in Classical Portuguese, cf. Torres Morais (1995, 1997). 10 Cf. Rizzi 1997, note 28; Roberts 2004.

104 (11)

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais a. [Force/FinP que [IP ]] b. [ForceP quei [FinP quei [IP . . . ]]]11

Interpolation is observed in all finite embedded clauses in OldP, although it is rarer in completive sentences than in relative and adverbial ones. We follow Martins (2002: 236) in assuming that in OldP the clitic marks the limits between focused constituents, on one side, and the interpolated/IP-scrambled constituents, on the other. In example (12a.), the scrambled adverb follows the clitic; in (12b.), the focused adverb comes before the clitic. (12)

a. quando soube que a assi levarom (CDP-fifteenth) when learn-pst-3sg that her-acc this-way took-pst-3pl ‘when I learned that she had been taken this way’ b. e elles disserom que assi o fariam and they say-pst-3sg that this-way it-acc do-pst-3pl ‘and they said that they would do it this way’.

(CDP-fifteenth)

We consider that (12b.) results from a split-CP with projection of the Focus structure. It is this property that makes interpolation/scrambling rarer in completive clauses. 6.3.2 V to Fin Direct objects and other thematized constituents can be moved to Spec,FinP, when Focus is not activated. The derived order is: Theme V (S) . . . . , if the subject is not the theme itself, or S V . . . . , when the subject is the theme and it is dislocated to Spec,FinP. The dislocated themes are pragmatically relevant constituents to the discursive cohesion. In this case, proclisis is systematic and a resumptive pronoun never occurs in the original position of the constituent. The finite verb is attracted to Fin, as in main sentences. The thematized constituent moves to Spec,FinP, resulting in the following V2 order: Theme V S (13a/b): (13)

a. deves a entender, Pedro, [ForceP que [FinP alguus ought-prs-2sg to to-undersand, Pedro, that some feitos contarei [IP eu per razon daquelas cousas que doings will-tell-1sg I for reason of-that things that entendo per eles]]] (DSG-fourteenth) understand-prs-1sg by them ‘You must understand, Pedro, that I will tell you some facts based on what I understand about them’. que [FinP taaes custumes aviam [IP eles que b. disse-lhis [ForceP say-pst-3sg-them-dat that such habits have-pst-3pl they that

11

Cf. Nunes 2004 for discussions of copy, merge, chain formation, and chain reduction.

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

105

non poderian convïïr con os seus]]] (DSG-fourteenth) not can-pst-3pl suit with the-pl his ‘He told them that they had such habits that could not suit with his’. quero [IP ser c. mais pera non entenderes [ForceP que [FinP eu ti but to not understand-inf-2sg that I you-dat want-prs-1sg to-be desobediente disobedient ‘But, for you not to think that I want to disobey you’. homens da d. E porque o abade sabia [ForecP que [FinP os And because the abbot know-pst-3sg that the-pl men of-the muito ]]] (DSG-fourteenth) terra o honravan [IP earth him-acc honour-pst-3pl much ‘And because the abbot knew that the men of Earth honoured him very much’. When a focused constituent is realized in FocusP, the finite verb always moves from Fin to Focus, to verify the Focus head features. The word order observed is: Focus V (S) . . . . The subject is post-verbal, if realized. Again, proclisis is systematic in this context. (14) a. a min semelha [ForceP que [FocP en vååoi cuidava ] [FinP ti tverb ] for me-dat seem-prs-3sg that in vain think-pst-1sg padres [IP eu tverb ti que en terra de Italia non avia I that in land of Italy not have-pst-3sg priests santos que fezessen miragres e maravilhas]] (DSG-fourteenth) holy that do-sbj-3pl miracles and marvels ‘It seems to me that I vainly thought that in Italy there weren’t holy men who would make miracles and marvelous things’. b.

osmo [ForceP que [FocP antei se acabaria ] [FinP ti tcl þ verb ] [IP o think-prs-1sg that before itself would-end-3sg the de contar o que . . . ]] (DSG-fourteenth) dia tcl þ verb [ti que] eu leixasse day that I finish-sbj-1sg of to-tell what . . . ‘I think that the day would have ended before I finished telling what . . . ’.12

c.

. . . dizer [ForceP que [FocP maisi teendes ] [FinP ti tverb ] [IP pro tverb juntas . . . to-say that more have-sbj-2pl altogether mil dobras]]] (CDP-fifteenth) [ ti de vinte of twenty thousand coins ‘ . . . to say that you have more than twenty thousand coins altogether’.

Informational Focus can also be the first V2 element in completive clauses (15). 12 In the gloss, the word ‘before ‘stands for the temporal conjunctional expression ‘ante que’, but it is only its adverbial portion (ante) that moves to Focus.

106 (15)

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais E acaeceu huu dia [ForceP que [Foc/FinP huu lavrador and happen-pst-3sg one day that one grower (DSG-fourteenth) veo] [IP . . . .. de mui longe pera vee-lo]] came-pst-3sg of very distant to to-see-him-acc ‘One day it happens that a grower from a very distant place came to see him’.

The examples in (10) above illustrate the interpolation (cl-neg), which is a systematic behaviour of embedded clauses in OldP (cf. Martins’s 1994, 1997, and Ribeiro’s 1995a analysis of this phenomenon). In main clauses, we observe the order neg – cl: (16)

e non-nas preçava and not-them-acc appraise-pst-1sg ‘And he didn’t appraise them at all’.

rem nothing

(DSG-fourteenth)

The relevant fact about OldP is that there is no interpolation in the completive clauses when TopP is activated. In other words, there is no difference between main and embedded clauses. (17)

rogoo-u beg-pst-3sg-him-acc o don que lhi the gift that him-dat

o cavaleiro de tan the knight of too dava] [FocP non-no gave-pst-3sg not-it-acc

gram coraçon [que [TopP great heart that despreçasse] [FinP . . . . . . . ]] refuse-sbj-3sg (DSG-fourteenth) ‘The knight begged him, from the bottom of his heart, for him not to refuse the gift that he gave to him’.

6.3.3. V to Fin versus merge que in Fin We assume that Frame and Topic are not V-related heads, so there is no movement of V to Frame/Topic. When a constituent merges in the Frame/Topic Field, there are two different types of structures. I. FocP is active; V moves to Fin, and to Focus head. (18)

ca temia o santo bispo [ForceP que1, [Frame/TopP se os because fear-pst-3sg the holy bishop that1 if the-pl homens soubessen aquelo que acaecera,] [FocP tanta vãã men know-sbj-3pl that that happen-pass-3sg much vain gloria lhi creceria] [FinP tDP t v ] [IP en seu coraçon glory him-dat would-grow-3sg in his heart quanto louvor . . . ]] (DSG-fourteenth) as praise . . . ‘ . . . . because the holy bishop feared that, if the men knew what had happened, it would grow, in his heart, as much vain glory as praise . . . ’

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

107

II. Focus Field is not active; Spec,FinP is occupied by a discursive null operator, a strategy to keep the thematic cohesion. (19)

a. Ja ora podes entender, Pedro, [que1 [LD aquelas Already now can-2sg to-understand, Pedro, that1 those cousas que Deus ordiou e soube ante que things that God demand-pst-3sg and know-pst-3sg before-that o mundo fosse feito,] [FinP OP compriron [IP -se the world be-sbj-3sg create-part, OP happen-pst-3pl-self pelas orações dos santos homens]] by-the-pl prayers of-the holy men]] ‘Now you can understand, Pedro, that those things that God has demanded and has known before the world was created happened because of the holy men’s prayers’. b. Ca diz San Joane no seu Evangelho que1 [FrameP Then say-prs-3sg S. J. in-the his gospel that1 [ todos aqueles que Jesu Cristo receberon e creeron all those that J. C. receive-pst-3pl and believe-pst-3pl que era filho de Deus], [FinP OP deu [IP -lhis el that be-pst-3sg son of God] OP give-pst-3sg-them he poderio ]] (DSG-fourteenth) power ‘Then, S. J. says, in his gospel, that Jesus Christ gave power to all those who received him and believed that he was God’s son’.

This is also the pattern observed in main sentences, when Spec,FinP is realized by a discursive null operator, as previously illustrated in the examples in (8). In both (18) and (19) examples, Fin*’s requirements are normally satisfied by V to Fin. However, Frame/Topic constituents may merge into Spec,FinP, which is only possible when FocusP is not activated. As Frame/Topic are not V-related, merge of que2 is a last resort strategy to satisfy Fin*’s requirement. (20)

a. e rogamos-vos [ForceP que1 [FinP [LD essas joyas que ella and beg-prs-1pl-you that1 those jewels that she leixou ] [Fin’ que2 ]] [IP as mandees dar ao left that2 them-acc send-sbj-2pl to-give to-the dito Joham Fernandez]] (CDP-fifteenth) aforementioned J. F. ‘and we beg you to send those jewels that she left to the aforementioned J. F’. b. E pero non he pera creer diz And however not be-prs-3sg for to-believe – say-prs-3sg bõõ logar a San Gregorio – [ForceP que1 [FinP [LD o S. G. – that1 the good place to

108

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

que o ja levaron] [Fin’ that him-acc already take-pst-3pl

que2 ]]] [IP o perdesse] that2 it lose-pst-3sg (DSG-fourteenth) ‘San Gregorio says that it is unbelievable that he had lost the good place where he was taken’.

Between the two realizations of que, there is a left dislocated object, resumed by a pronoun after the second que. We assume that the doubling-que structures result from the merge of the left dislocated object into Spec,FinP. Left dislocated subjects can also occupy Spec,FinP, as shown in the following examples:13 (21)

a. e o abade San Beento dizendo o contrairo [ForceP and the abbot San Beento saying the contrary que1 [FinP Deus que2] [IP o fezera por el ]] (DSG-fourteenth) God that2 it had-done-3sg for him that1 ‘And the abbot Saint Bento saying just the contrary, that God had worked a wonder for him (not San Bento)’. b. mandou-lhi dizer [ForceP que1 [FinP el que2 ] [IP send-pst-3sg-him to-say that1 he that2 o ia ver ]] (DSG-fourteenth) him-acc go-pst-3sg to-see ‘He (king Totila) sent someone to tell him (San Bento) that he was going to see him’.

Scene setting adverbs can also be sandwiched between the two ques (as in 22): (22)

deffendemus firmemëte [ForceP que1 [FinP daqui adeante defend-prs-1pl firmly that1 from now on que2 ] [IP nenhüü seya ousado de coller në de midir that2 no one be-sbj- dare of to-harvest nor to-measure ome pan que teue na eyra senõ desta man bread that have-pst-3sg in-the land except of-this guysa]] way (FR-thirteenth) ‘We strongly order that, from now on, nobody shall dare to harvest or appraise the food that was grown in one’s land, except the way it was said here’.

13 Both examples are ambiguous between a contrastive topic or focus reading. It is this kind of data that is in the origin of the loss of V2 in focus constructions.

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese

109

Based on Cardinaletti (2004), we consider that the quantified subject nenhüü (nobody) in (22) cannot occur in a left-dislocated position. Instead it occurs within IP. The constituent daqui adeante (from now on) merges into Spec,FinP. The examples in (20)–(22) are clear evidence that there are two ques in OldP: the first one (que1) is a complementizer specified as declarative. It merges in Force, the topmost projection of the C-system. The second one (que2) is a expression of Fin. Both ques can be realized simultaneously in the sentence. The data of OldP also evidence a third realization of que (que3). It merges in Topic head.14 (23)

ca lhi semelhava [ForceP que1 [TopP quanto triigo because his-dat resemble-pst-3sg that1 all wheat despendera per todo ano que3 ] [FocP ali o spent-pst-3sg for all year that3 there it-acc viia ] [FinP tali tcl þ v ] [IP . . . . . ajuntado ]] (DSG-fourteenth) see-pst-3sg gather-part ‘So it seemed to him that there he had gathered all the wheat he spent during the whole year’.

As shown in (23), Spec,FocP is realized by the focused adverb ali (there) and the focus head, by CL þ V. Notice that que3 can occur in variation with a Ø complementizer, as illustrated in (19a) above. So, the relevant facts about embedded clauses in OldP are: (i) Fin is always Fin* by different strategies; (ii) Fin moves to Force, if the C-domain periphery is not active; (iii) V moves to Fin, when Spec,FinP is occupied; (iv) V moves to Fin-to-Focus, when a focused constituent moves to Spec,FocP; In this case, the copy of V in Fin must be relevant for Fin*; (v) que merges into Fin, when a Frame/Topic constituent merges into Spec,Fin.

6.4 Brazilian Portuguese data and some diachronic observations Doubling-que disappears from Medieval written texts at the end of the fifteenth century (cf. Wanner 1998); however, it is documented in the Portuguese of some less educated writers, in seventeenth century Inquisition letters and in nineteenth century writings of African descendants in Brazil; also, in spoken BP. In this section, we first discuss the possibility of doubling-que in spoken BP, and then highlight some aspects of its diachronic development. The BP data discussed and presented here come from our intuition as BP native speakers. 14 This OP doubling que is similar to Saramaccan and Gugbe. Aboh (2006) argued that the Saramaccan form fu represents two complementizer types: fu1 and fu2, which encode C-type features. The same holds for the Gugbe ni1 and ni2. Cf. also Roberts (2004) for Force and Fin particles in Welsh.

110

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

Doubling-que constructions in BP are used in spoken language, when the left periphery is activated either by a Focus or by any topicalized constituent in FrameP or TopicP. 6.4.1 Focus and Topic Fields We first observe that none of the OldP-V2 structures derived from V-to-Fin/Focus movement and from thematized/focalized constituent movement to Spec,FinP/FocP result in grammatical possibilities in BP embedded completives: (24)

a. *Pedro, Pedro, [ (eu) (I)

você deve entender [ que [ you must understand that por este motivo]] by this reason

b. *João disse [ que [ ESSE John said that this e não esta revista but not this magazine

LIVRO book

alguns fatos some-pl facts

contei] tell-pst-1sg

comprou] [ Maria,]] bought Mary,

The examples in (24) are ungrammatical, since they would be derived from V-to-Fin/Focus movement. We assumed that V-to-Fin is a basic requirement for movement of a thematized constituent to Spec, FinP, only possible in V2 languages. However, constituents from the Frame/Topic Field and focused constituents can occur between the two ques. The BP versions of some examples of doubling-que in OldP are shown in (25): (25)

a. e pedimos a vocês [ForceP que [FrameP essas jóias and ask-pst-1pl to you that these jewels que ela deixou] [que (vocês) mandem dar elas that she leave-pst-1sg that ( you) ask-sbj-2pl to-give them-acc aos filhos legítimos]] to-the sons true-born ‘and we beg you to send those jewels that she left to the true-born sons’. b. defendemos firmemente [ForceP que [FrameP de agora em diante] defend-prs-1pl strongly that from now on [ que ninguém seja ousado de recolher impostos that nobody be-sbj-3sg dare of to-collect taxes sem autorização do governo.]] without authorization of-the government ‘We strongly advise that, from now on, nobody dares to collect taxes without an authorization from the government’.

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese c. e dizia [ForceP que [FrameP se and say-pst-3sg that if [ que (ela) morreria logo/logo that (she) would-die soon/soon ‘and she said that if a doctor was not

111

não enviassem um médico] not send-sbj-3pl a doctor morreria]] would-die sent she would die soon’.

d. e dizia [ForceP que [FrameP quando João chegasse] and say-pst-3sg that when J. arrive-sbj-3sg [que (eles) iriam ao cinema]] that (they) would-go to-the movies ‘and she said that, after João arrives, they would go to the movies’. e. e diziam [ForceP que [FrameP/TopP (a/pra) and say-pst-3pl that (to/for) que acreditaram em Jesus Cristo] [ que that believe-pst-3pl in J. C. that deu a/pra eles grande poder]] give-pst-3sg to/for them big power ‘and they said that God would give great power Jesus Christ’.

todos aqueles all those Deus lhes God them-dat

to those who believed in

We will explain the derivation of sentences in (25) as the result of merge of que into Fin. Notice that, differently from doubling-que in OldP, the topicalized constituent merges into the Frame/Topic periphery, and not into Spec,FinP. There is no spec-head relationship between the topicalized constituents and que2, since parenthetical sentences can occur between them, as illustrated in examples below: (26)

a. e pedimos a vocês [ForceP que1 [HT essas jóias que and ask-pst-1pl to you that1 these jewels that ela deixou Ø], she leave-pst-3sg Ø, [Parenth. segundo o que reza o testamento,] according the that say-prs-3sg the will, [FinP que2 vocês mandem dar elas aos filhos legítimos]] that2 you ask-sbj-3pl to-give them-acc to-the sons true-born ‘and we asked you to give these jewels which she left to her true-born children, according to what was said in the will’. b.

e and

dizia [ForceP say-pst-3sg

que1 [FrameP that1

quando when

João João

chegasse arrive-sbj-3sg

Ø], Ø,

112

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais [Parenth. segundo o que Maria disse], according the that Maria say-prs-3sg, ao cinema]] [FinP que2 eles iriam that2 they would-go to-the movies ‘According to Maria, he said that they would go to the movies, after João arrives’.

So, we assume that que2 merges into the Fin head and that the TopicP head is realized by a Ø complementizer. We will return to this later. 6.4.2 Some comparative data between European Portuguese (EP) and BP EP also produces the doubling-que completives in spoken language (data from Mascarenhas 2007). (27)

a. Acho que este livro que a Ana não gostou dele. (p: 5) Think-prs-1sg that this book that the Ana not like-pst-3sg of-it ‘I think that Ana did not like this particular book’. b. Disseram-me que ao João que o professor Tell-pst-3pl-me-acc that to-the J. that the teacher (lhe) deu um dezoito. (p: 4) (them.dat) gave a eighteen ‘They told me that the teacher gave J. an eighteen grade’.

According to Mascarenhas (2007), it seems that EP does not have syntactic restrictions regarding the number of reduplications of C with the realization of que between each instance (although there are processing restrictions): (28)

Acho que amanhã que a Ana que vai Think-prs-1sg that tomorrow that the Ana that will acabar o trabalho (p: 1) to-finish the job ‘I think that tomorrow Ana will be able to get the task done’.

conseguir be-able

The constituent in between may be somehow associated with the Topic Field, but not with focused elements, which leads Mascarenhas (2007) to propose that complementizers such as que can occupy topic positions, as in the structure illustrated in (29), with recursive TopicP: (29)

acho [ForceP que [TopP amanhã que [TopP a think-prs-1sg that tomorrow that the

Ana Ana

que . . . . . . . . . ]]] that . . . .

Differently from EP, the discursive reading of (28), in BP, with the subordinate null subject, covers the second sandwiched constituent more easily as Focus than as Topic. This is illustrated in the examples below (30):

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese (30)

a. João disse que ontem John say-pst-3sg that yesterday ao cinema (e não Maria to-the movies (but not Mary ‘John said that, yesterday, it was Ana

113

que Ana que foi that Ana that go-pst-3sg / *e não ao teatro) / * but not to-the theatre) that went to the movies’.

b. João disse que ontem que Ana que ela foi John say-pst-3sg that yesterday that Ana that she go-pst-3sg ao cinema (e não ao teatro / *e não Maria) to-the movies (but not to-the theatre / * but not Mary) ‘John said that, yesterday, Ana went to the movies, not to the theatre’. We see a contrast between the examples in (30): if there is no resumptive pronoun, Focus is the only possible reading for Ana, the second sandwiched constituent (cf. example 30a.). If the resumptive pronoun is present, Topic is the only possible reading of this constituent (30b.). In the example (30a.), que2 is merged into Fin, not into Focus, as represented below: (31)

João disse [ForceP que [FrameP ontem que3] [FocP ANA Ø], John say-pst-3sg that yesterday that3 ANA Ø [XP segundo Maria], [FinP que2 [IP foi ao cinema]]] according Maria, that2 go-pst-3sg to-the movies ‘John said that, according to Maria, it was Ana that went to the movies yesterday’.

We conclude that que occupies Fin head when the CP domain is filled by Frame, Topic or Focus, that is, if movement of Fin-to-Force is not operative. 6.4.3 About que3 and que4 in BP In BP we have two more types of que: Top (que3) and Focus (que4) that also alternate with an Ø complementizer. (32)

a. João disse [ForceP que1 [FocP (a) ANA que4 / Ø] [XP segundo Maria] John say-pst-3sg that1 (the) ANA que4 / Ø according Mary o trabalho amanhã]]] [FinP que2 [IP pro vai acabar that2 pro will-to-finish the paper tomorrow ‘John said that, according to Mary, it is Ana that will finish the paper tomorrow’. b. João disse [ForceP que1 [TopP (a) Ana que3 / Ø] [XP segundo Maria] John say-pst-3sg that1 (the) Ana que3 / Ø, according Mary, [FinP que2 [IP ela vai acabar o trabalho amanhã]]] that2 she will-to-finish the paper tomorow ‘John said that, according to Mary, Ana will finish the paper tomorrow’.

114

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

We observe that que2 is not allowed to follow both que3 and que4 unless some phonological material is realized between the two. This restriction against the repetition of morphemes is very familiar in the literature (cf. references in Paoli 2007). It explains the impossibility of (33). In BP this restriction can be avoided with the Ø complementizer in the Topic/Focus head. (33)

*João disse [ForceP John think-pst-3sg [FinP que2 [IP (ela) (she) that2

que1 [TopP/FocP (a) Ana that1 (the) Ana vai conseguir acabar o will-achieve to-finish the

que4/3] that4/3 trabalho]] job

6.4.4 Northwestern Italian dialects Paoli (2007) shows that, in two Northwestern Italian dialects, Turinese and Ligurian, doubling-que constructions are possible when the verb is in the subjunctive mood in the embedded clause. (34) A Teeja a credda che a Maria ch’ a parta (Ligurian) the Teresa SCL believe-prs-3s that the Mary that SCL leave-sbj.3s ‘Teresa believes that Mary will leave’. In Old and Modern Portuguese, C-doubling is not sensitive to the verb mood in the subordinate sentence, having been documented in the indicative, conditional, and subjunctive. The example in (34) can be expressed in Portuguese with different mood realizations, depending on the main verb, as shown in (35): (35) a. (A) Teresa deseja/espera que (a) Maria qu’ela (The) Teresa wishes/hopes that (the) Maria that she parta amanhã leave-sbj-3sg tomorrow ‘Teresa wishes/hopes that Mary left/leaves tomorrow’. b. (A) Teresa acredita que (a) Maria qu’ela partirá (The) Teresa believes that 9the0 Maria that she will-leave ‘Theresa believes that Mary will leave tomorrow’.

amanhã tomorrow

Thus, mood selection of the embedded clause seems to be related to selectional properties of the root verb, and not to selectional properties of Fin. We follow Cardinaletti (2004: 142) in that the second complementizer in (34) can be analysed as the realization of an irrealis Mood head, within the INFL domain.

6.5 What about the diachronic perspective of doubling-que? As we said before, doubling-que disappears from Medieval written texts, but it is documented in the written seventeenth century EP, as shown in the examples below:

Doubling-que embedded constructions in Old Portuguese (36)

115

a. he homem q. migou na natureza da sua mula is man that piss-pst-3sg on.the ass of-the his mule dizendo q. a mula q. estaua com dezeios de fazer saying that the mule that be-pst-3sg with wishes to do tal couza (Marquilhas 1996; Anexos III, Documento IV – 1617–1620) such thing ‘He is the man that had sex with his mule, saying that it was the mule which wished to do such a thing’. b. diz q. deuos q. não pode perdoar pecados . . . (Marquilhas 1996; Anexos III, said that god that not can forgive sins. Documento IV – 1617–1620) ‘He said that God can’t forgive our sins.’

Also the doubling-que appears in writings of African descendants in Brazil: (37)

a. disse a o prizidente [ForceP que [FrameP quando hovesse say-pst-3sg to the president that when there-were lhe chamar]] um trabalho como este] [FinP que mandasse a task like this that should-order him call (1862) ‘He said to the president that, whenever a task like this comes up, he should call for him’. sunsuro b. o dispois o Prezidente disse [ForceP que [TopP o after the President say-pst-3sg that the whisper que ocorese] [FinP que [IP elle não tinha curpa]]] (1862) that occur-sbj-3sg that he not had guilt ‘And then the President said that whatever happened, he would not be blamed.’

These historical data show that doubling-que has been always present in the grammar of Portuguese. However, this phenomenon displays some diachronic development: in OldP it competes with V to Fin; in EP and BP it competes with Ø morpheme. Also, doubling-que is sensitive to the left periphery.

6.6 Conclusion This chapter shows that the nature and structure of finite subordinate clauses in Old Portuguese provide new evidence to the assumption that the C-system consists of distinct functional projections, hosting distinct fronted constituents and coding very different types of features. We assume Rizzi’s layered CP, with the modifications proposed by Benincà and Poletto (2004) and Benincà (2004), in the sense that Topic and Focus are Fields (a set of projections), Topic being a higher Field hosting nonoperator elements, and Focus a lower Field hosting operator-like elements. We also

116

Ilza Ribeiro and Maria A. Torres Morais

accept Roberts’ (2004) idea that the V2 phenomenon results from the requirement that Fin must have a phonological realization. It was argued that in OldP que represents different complementizer types. It merges under force (que1), under Frame/Topic (que3) and under Fin (que2). In Frame/Topic head it co-occurs with a Ø complementizer. It was also argued that there are three forms of Fin’s feature realization in OldP. The first one results from movement of Fin to Force, the operation that is behind the possibility of interpolation; the second one from movement of V to Fin, which is required by the V2 grammar; the third one from the insertion of que2. This is the main property of doubling-que complement clauses. Finally we discussed doubling-que complement clauses in BP. In this language there is no requirement of Fin*’s phonological realization by V-movement. However when the left periphery is activated, there is variation between merging of que/Ø complementizer into Fin. All these properties are represented in (38a-b), respectively for OldP and BP: (38)

a. [ForceP [Force que1] [Frame/TopP [Top que3/Ø] [FocP [Foc V] [ FinP [Fin V/que2]]]]] b. [ForceP [Force que1] [Frame/TopP [Top que3/Ø] [FocP [Foc que4/Ø] [ FinP [Fin que2/Ø]]]]]

The conclusion is that the nature and structure of doubling-que in OldP and Modern BP complement sentences stress important differences and similarities between both languages.

7 Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish Similar changes in Romania Nova MARY AIZAWA KATO1

7.1 Introduction Brazilian Portuguese (BP) has been attesting syntactic changes in its core grammar since the second half of the nineteenth century (cf. Roberts and Kato 1993 a.o.), which has set it apart from the European variety (EP). Caribbean dialects of Spanish (CS) have been undergoing surprisingly similar changes, which also made them depart from General Spanish (GS) (cf. Toribio 1996 a.o.). The first type of change (cf. Kato and Negrão 2000, and articles therein) is the loss/decrease of referential null subjects. In this domain, what is also similar is that different persons manifest different degrees of loss, the third person still licensing the null variant when it is co-indexed with a c-commanding antecedent.2 (1)

a. Cantas a’. Tú canta(s)

b. CantaØ b’. Él canta

c. Cantamos c’. Nosotros cantamo(s)

GS CS

(2)

a. Cantas b. Você canta

b. CantaØ b. Ele canta

c. Cantamos c. Nós cantamo(s) c’. A gente canta

EP BP BP

(3)

a. El presidentei dice que proi va aumentar los impuestos. b. O presidentei disse que proi vai aumentar os impostos. Lit.: ‘The president says that (he) will increase the taxes’.

CS BP

1 This work had the support of CNPq, grant 301219/2008-7. I thank Eugenia Duarte for the data sources in Kato and Duarte (2002), and also her careful reading of the previous version of this work. Thanks also to the two Oxford reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions. I also thank Paco Ordoñez for our preliminary discussion presented in Romania Nova 2006 on the same topic. Thanks also to Marcello Marcelino for his usual help with revision. All the remaining errors are entirely mine. 2 These initial data from BP are from Duarte (1995) and those from CS are from Toribio (1996).

118

Mary Aizawa Kato

The second change in CS has to do with what has been considered the loss of the order VS in wh-questions, when the subject is a pronoun (5) (cf. Nuñes Cedeño 1983, Ordoñez and Olarrea 2006)3. BP is also on the way to lose the order VS, but equally with full DPs (6) (cf. Lopes Rossi 1996, and Kato and Duarte 2002)4. (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

a. ¿Qué comes what eat-2sg

tú? you

GS ‘what do you eat?’

b. ¿A quién visitó Juan? to whom visited-3sg John

GS ‘Who did Juan visit?’

a. Mas o que tens but what have-2sg

tu? you

nineteenth century BP ‘But what do you have?’

b. Onde mora where live-3sg

a Maria? Mary

nineteenth century BP ‘Where does Mary live?’

a. ¿Qué tú quiere(s)? what you want-2sg

CS ‘What do you want?’

b. *¿Qué José quiere? what José want-3sg

CS ‘What does José want?’

a. O que você acha disso? what you think-3sg of-this

twentieth century BP ‘What do you think of this?’

b. O que o João quer? what the John want-3sg

twentieth century BP ‘What does John want?’

The aim of this chapter is to answer the following questions: a) what can we learn when two languages undergo similar changes, with regard to the trigger of the changes, and the way these changes are implemented? b) are the two changes accidentally related or can they have a microparametric correlation? Recall that the order VS in interrogatives is traditionally considered a Germanic V2 type of inversion (Cf. Roberts 1993), distinct from Romance inversion, allegedly part of the null subject parameter (Rizzi 1982).

7.2 The loss/decrease of referential null subjects in BP and CS In CS what caused the impoverishment of the agreement paradigm was the deterioration of the inflectional ending itself (cf. Toribio 1996). In BP what caused the nondistinctive agreement inflection was the replacement of tu and vós with nominal address forms você/vocês (grammatically 3P), and the plural first person nós with the nominal expression a gente (3PSG) (cf. Duarte 1995 a.o.). This suggests that whatever 3 4

Caribbean examples are from Ordoñez and Olarrea (2006). BP examples are from Kato and Duarte (2002).

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

119

the cause that led to the impoverishment of agreement endings, the effect in grammar was the same. The impoverished agreement was claimed to make the inflectional paradigm unable to identify pro (cf. Galves 1993, among others, for BP). But Toribio (1996) claims that languages that have non-pronominal INFL can identify pro under co-indexation with a c-commanding DP or null operator, like Chinese (see ex. (3)). However, the traditional view of the null subject as pro identified by Agr/INFL cannot be maintained in the minimalist theory, where Agr, or the phi-features of T, are uninterpretable (Chomsky 1995). In view of this, I assume Kato (1999), who argues that pro does not exist as an empty category.5 The agreement itself is pronominal and interpretable. As in BP Agr is no longer pronominal, it introduced a group of free weak pronouns, quasi-homophonous with the strong nominative ones (cf. Nunes 1990), represented here in block letters, (EU/ô, VOCÊ/cê, ELE/ei, VOCÊS/cês, ELES/eis). Though Kato (1999) uses the terms strong and weak in the sense of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), for her, the weak pronouns include agreement affixes, and the division is tripartite for the latter as in: (8)

Pronouns Strong

Weak Free

Clitics

Pronominal Agr

For Kato (1999), pronominal Agr, understood as the grammaticalization/incorporation of personal pronouns in verbal inflection, is claimed to be in complementary distribution with weak pronouns and subject clitics. Thus the loss of one implies the introduction of the other type of weak pronoun. This is what happened with French, which lost pronominal Agr, but acquired pronominal clitics (see Roberts 1993). Pronominal Agr is syntactically defined by Kato (1999) as a D-category that appears in the numeration as an independent item from the verb, being first merged as an external argument, with Case and f-features. There is no spec of T/INFL projected, as the pronominal agreement satisfies EPP morphologically. With Agr no longer pronominal, free weak pronouns are introduced, and spec of T/INFL has to be projected.

5 See different theories to deal with the problem in Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) and Holmberg (2005).

120

Mary Aizawa Kato

(9) a. before the change TP

T

b. after the change TP

VP V⬘

-oi fala-V DP falo

T⬘

DP

D

V

ti

tV

eu[ô]

T

VP

falo-V DP

V

ti

tV

Strong pronouns are assumed to be in a higher projection than weak pronouns. This higher projection can be SP, as in Martins (1994). When the pronoun is overt in NS languages, it has always an emphatic or contrastive interpretation. If a non-NS language has an overt pronoun, the sentence exhibits subject doubling, as in BP.

(10) a. before the change ΣP DP

b. after the change ΣP DP

TP T

VP

VOCÊ -∅i come-V DP come

D ti

TP T⬘

DP V⬘

VOCÊ cê

V DP tv o bolo

T comev

VP DP ti

(11)

a. VOCÊ come you eat

o the

bolo. cake

b. VOCÊ, cê come o bolo YOU you eat the cake

V⬘ V DP ti o bolo

‘You eat the cake’. ‘YOU, you eat the cake’.

7.3 The innovative SV(O) order in wh-questions in BP and CS I will base my analysis on Kato and Duarte’s (2002) data for BP,6 who show that the loss of the VS order in wh-questions correlates with the increase of pre-verbal pronominal subjects. 6 Actually in a previous work Duarte (1992) attributes the loss of VS order in wh-questions to a parallel innovation that occurred in the nineteenth century, namely the appearance of é que questions, or cleft questions.

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

95%

121

87%

77% 57% 67%

20% 3% 1845

23%

46%

25%

73%

50%

14%

16% 1882

1918

1937

Full Subjects

1955

1975

1992

SV Order

FIGURE 7.1 Loss of VS and increase of pre-verbal pronominal subjects (apud Kato and Duarte 2002).

The following are the patterns found in the two centuries:7  Null subjects (12)

a. Com quem tenho o prazer de falar? with whom have-1sg the pleasure to talk ‘Who do I have the pleasure to talk to?’ b. Para que estudaste tanto, rapaz? for what studied-2sg so much, boy ‘Why did you study so much, boy?’ c. Como apanhou esse reumatismo? how got-3sg this rheumatism (indirect 2nd person) ‘How did you get this rheumatism?’

(1845-ON)

(1882-CFD)

(1918-OSJ)

 Overt postposed subjects (13)

a. Sim senhor, mas que tenho eu a temer? yes, sir, but what have-1sg I to fear ‘Yes, sir, but what do I have to fear?’ b. Por que desapareceu ele lá de casa? why disappeared-3sg he from home ‘Why did he disappear from home?’

(1845-ON)

(1882-COM)

These cleft constructions have, in general, the SV order, though they can also license the VS order. Lopes-Rossi (1996) argues, however, that the appearance of é que (‘is that’) questions did not cause the loss of VS order in European Portuguese, though this variety also implemented the cleft-interrogatives. 7

See data sources in the Appendix at the end of this chapter.

122

Mary Aizawa Kato c. Quando pretende você deixar esta casa? when intend-3sg you to leave this house ‘When do you intend to leave this house?

(1937-OHQ2)

d. Que fez seu filho com os documentos em poder dele? (1955-UEC) what did-3sg your son with the documents in power his ‘What did your son do with the documents in his power?’ (14)

a. Para que o queres tu? for what it-want-2sg you ‘What do you want it for?’ b. Que lhe disse o Honorato? what you dat-said-3sg the Honorato ‘What did Honorato tell you?’

(1845-ON)

(1937-OHQ2)

An illustrative contrastive pair of the first change in BP appears in (15): when pronouns are spelled out, they used to appear on the right of the inflected verb (15a.). With the change, the pronouns can only appear to the left of the verb as in (15b.): (15)

a. Mas que tenho eu com isso but what have-1sg I with it ‘But what do I have with that?’

(1891-OT)

b. Em quem você vai votar? in whom you will vote ‘Who are you going to vote for?’

(1994-NILC)

Since the beginning of the change, the order SV is found with pronouns, but not with DPs, which used to appear postposed (16a.). Later, DPs follow the change that affected pronouns (16b.), as can be seen in example (16d.). But, Table 7.1 shows that DPs are still possible in sentence-final position (16c.), at the end of the twentieth century, in a construction popularized as ‘stylistic inversion’ (Kayne and Pollock 1999).8 (16)

a. O que quer essa mulher comigo? what want-3sg this woman with me ‘What does this woman want with me?’ b. O que ela te disse, Luiza? what she you-clitic said Luiza ‘What did she say to you, Luiza?’ c. E com quem o Serra tava falando? and with whom the Serra was talking? ‘Who was Serra talking to?’

(1845-ON)

(1861,SL)

(1994-NILC)

8 But in Kato and Duarte (2002), such constructions are analyzed as ‘fake inversions’, with the DP in a right dislocated position, with the subject a resumptive null pronoun (Onde pro estava o Savio?).

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

d. Onde estava Savio? ‘where was Savio?’

123

(1994-NILC)

Table 7.1. Full DP subjects in VS and SV structures (apud Kato and Duarte 2002: 15) Pattern

1845

1882

1918

1937

1955

1975

1992

Total

Full DP VS Full DP SV Total

16 100% 0 16

16 100% 0 16

11 100% 0 11

7 78% 2 22% 9

3 100% 0 3

3 27% 8 73% 11

8 72% 2 28% 7

61 84% 12 16% 73

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

tu ello el h s he rm erm an an o o he de av j u yN an P ho he av mbr yN e P ni ño

ell no a so tro s

el

Ud s

Ud

tu

0

FIGURE 7.2 Percentage of non-inversion by subject type (apud Ordoñez and Olarrea, 2006).

7.4 The synchronic data in CS (Ordoñez and Olarrea 2006) For contemporary CS, Ordoñez and Olarrea (2006) shows a picture similar to the one found in late nineteenth and early twentieth century BP: (17)

a. ¿Dónde yo he dejado los espejuelos? where I have left the glasses ‘Where have I left my glasses?’

Mary Aizawa Kato

124

b. ¿Qué ellos trajeron a la fiesta? what they brought to the party? ‘What did they bring to the party?’ c. *¿Qué José quiere? what José wants? ‘What does José want?’ Though their study is not a diachronic one, they claim that the word order change was not caused by the loss of V2 properties,9 but was triggered by the entry of weak pronouns in the Caribbean system, with the consequence of pronoun placement pre-verbally inside TP/IP. However, no connection with weak pronouns is made regarding the loss of null subjects in CS. Ordoñez and Olarrea propose that the order SV in wh-questions is the result of movement of remnant IP above the position in which the subject lands (based on Kayne and Pollock’s (2001) ‘stylistic inversion’ analysis for French). They also make use of an exploded CP ‘a la Rizzi’ (1997), shown in (18), and derive the SV order in (19) as in (19)a.: (18)

[OP2 [ Force [ Ground P [ TopP [ OP1]]]]]

(19)

Qué tú quieres? what you want ‘What do you want?’ (19) a. [IP tú quieres

qué]?

(19)

b. [Op1 Qué [Op1 [IP tú quieres tqué ]]?

(19)

c. [Ground

(19)

d. [Op2 Qué [OP2[ GroundP [IP tú quieres][ Ground [

P [IP

tú quieres ] [Ground [

Op1

Qué [Op1]]? Op1 tqué]]?

9

They claim that General Spanish is not a V2 type of language like German, and therefore CS did not lose a V2 type of grammar. Among the several arguments against a previous V2 grammar, they show that, contrary to German, movement of auxiliary to C alone results in ungrammatical sentences: (i)

*¿A to (ii) ¿A to

quién who quién who

había la madre had the mother había visto la had seen the

de of madre mother

Juan Juan de of

visto? (Spanish) seen? ‘Who had Juan’s mother seen?’ Juan? Juan? ‘Who had Juan’s mother seen?’

What is intriguing, however, is that Portuguese has been claimed to have been a V2 language (Ribeiro 1995 a.o.), and patterns like (i) were common in the eighteenth century. This led Kato and Duarte (2002), and others before them, to consider that such WhVSX patterns were V2 structures: (iii)

Que what

tinha had

teu your

irmão brother

comprado? bought

‘What had your brother bought?’

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

125

For Ordoñez and Olarrea, lexical DPs and strong pronouns in Spanish have two possible positions: they may remain low below the final landing site of the verb, yielding the VSO order, or they can move to a higher topic position. (20)

a. Qué quieres TÚ comigo? what want you with me ‘What do you want with me?’ b. TÚ, que quieres comigo? you what (you) want with me ‘YOU, what do you want with me?’

They provide the derivation for a postposed DP subject in VSX order still possible in CS, and they unify both the WhVXS and the WhVSX under the same analysis of ‘stylistic inversion’. (21)

En qué fiesta comió José curry? in which party ate José curry ‘In what party did José eat curry?’

(21)

a. [IP comió [VPJosé [VPcurry en qué fiesta ]]]?

(21)

b. [OP1 En qué fiesta [IP comió José curry]]?

(21)

c. [GroundP [IP comió José curry] [OP1 En qué fiesta]?

(21)

d. [OP2 En qué fiesta [GroundP[IP comió José curry].. [OP1 twh . . . . .

GS

For the authors, both the strong pronoun and the DP subject are sitting in the same position, a higher inflectional projection, as in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and Kato (1999). The two previous subsections lead to the following summary: A. The picture in the second half of the nineteenth century BP is similar to that of CS today: SV was licensed with pronouns, but not with DPs. B. Comparing the way weak subject pronouns developed in BP, in the context of loss of referential NSs, and the empirical synchronic distribution in CS in WhSV context, we can suggest that the introduction of CS weak pronouns followed the same order, with the third person pronouns having a delay compared to the other persons. The delay in the third person may be behind the reason why SV order is not fully licensed in CS. C. This means that the change in this domain was gradual and lexically diffuse in the Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968) sense. D. It was also observed that variation in a synchronic state may reveal the way a change has been implemented (Labov 1975). Thus the synchronic variation in CS must reveal the diachronic implementation of its change. But in this chapter we also presented further cross-linguistic evidence for the Caribbean facts.

126

Mary Aizawa Kato

7.5 The joint analysis of the two changes in BP In the previous section, we saw that Kato (1999) proposed that the loss of the NS was the result of the emergence of free weak pronouns in both the BP and the CS systems. Ordoñez and Olarrea (2006) suggested that the appearance of the order SV in whquestions was the result of the introduction of weak pronouns in CS. Both analyses claim that weak pronouns are sitting in spec of IP/TP, while strong ones are sitting in a higher projection (SP) or inside the original VP, namely in a lower projection. In this chapter, I analyse the two changes as having the same trigger: the appearance of weak pronouns. The result of this is the possibility for such pronouns to appear pre-verbally (in spec of IP), independently of whether the clause is a declarative (22a.’) or a wh-question (22b.’). Before the change, the only subject pronouns that appeared overtly were the strong ones, in which case they would appear immediately after the verb (VSX) (cf. (23a.,b.)) or, more markedly, or ungrammatically, in sentence final position (VXS) (cf. (24a.)). After the change, the position of strong pronouns is restricted to the high sentence periphery. The mid sentence position is ruled out. Nineteenth century (22)

Twentieth century

a. Come-ste o bolo ontem. a’. Cê comeu o bolo ontem. ate-2sg the cake yesterday you ate the cake yesterday ‘You ate the cake yesterday’. b. Que come-ste ontem? b’. O que cê comeu ontem? what ate-2sg yesterday what you ate yesterday ‘What did you eat yesterday?’

(23)

a. Comeste TU o bolo ontem. a’. VOCÊ, cê comeu o bolo ontem. ate YOU the cake yesterday YOU, you ate the cake yesterday ‘It was YOU who ate the cake yesterday’. b. Que come-ste TU ontem? b’. VOCÊ, o que cê comeu ontem? what ate-2sg YOU yesterday YOU what you ate yesterday ‘YOU, what did you eat yesterday?’

(24)

Quando come-ste o bolo, TU? b. *Quando cê comeu o bolo, VOCÊ? when ate-2sg the cake YOU when you ate the cake YOU ‘YOU, when did you eat the cake?’

Word order is usually determined by information criteria, and the position of subject is not different. Thus, it is a mistake to compare sentences like VS and SV only in terms of old and new forms without taking the information status of the subject position into account.

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

127

Above we compared the forms before and after the changes that were functionally equivalent. Notice that, contrary to common assumptions, the sentence that corresponds to the old form (23a.), with the postposed subject, is not the new sentence in (22a.’), with the preposed subject. As for the strong pronoun in sentence final position, in both periods they are doubling patterns. In old times they double the pronominal agreement, and in modern times they double the weak free pronouns. The derivation of such sentences requires that once the strong pronoun is placed in the left peripheral position, the remnant can be moved over it, resulting in its final position, as part of informational focus.10 As we show the changes together, we realize that, when only pronouns are taken into account, the change in wh-questions was not properly a change in word order. Thus, if there is any word order change, it regards only the patterns with strong pronouns. Moreover, what happens with DPs is that, while in the old grammar both strong pronouns and DPs appeared as postposed subjects (25), today strong pronouns share with DPs only the position external to IP (26a.,b.). In the new grammar, DPs and weak pronouns appear as pre-verbal subjects (26c.). (25)

(26)

a. Que come-ste TU ontem? what ate-2sg you yesterday ‘What did you eat yesterday?’

(nineteenth century)

b. Que come-u a Maria ontem? what ate-3sg the Maria yesterday ‘What did Maria eat yesterday?’

(nineteenth century)

a. VOCÊ, o que cê comeu ontem? YOU what you ate yesterday ‘YOU, what did you eat yesterday?’

(twentieth century)

b. A MARIA. o que ela comeu ontem? the Maria what she ate yesterday ‘As for MARIA, what did she eat?’

(twentieth century)

c. O que a Maria ela comeu? what the Maria she ate ‘What did Maria eat?’

(twentieth century)

What we do not have is a strong pronoun as a preverbal subject. This is understandable also in semantico-pragmatic terms. The strong pronoun in all the sentences above, be it the old form or the new form, has specific discursive functions of either contrast or emphasis, which places it in the exploded CP domain. The DP on

10 Contrary to the previous stage, such movement in contemporary BP is constrained by weight, as is the case in all VXS orders today.

128

Mary Aizawa Kato

the other hand, cannot have such exclusive functions. Comparing sentences with a postposed subject, the DP can be part of the information focus, while the strong pronoun is present necessarily only for contrast or emphasis. The conclusion here is that DPs have been considered equivalent to strong pronouns, but actually they are only partially so.

7.6 Some new assumptions and claims 7.6.1 Pronouns and DPs We had assumed that DPs and strong pronouns are merged in the same positions: in the high periphery of the sentence or left-adjacent to VP. Our claim, in this chapter, however, is that a DP is always merged in spec of VP, as an argument. The difference between the twentieth and nineteenth century is that, while the DP itself is the whole external argument in the new grammar (27b.), the DP, in the previous period, is part of a complex DP where the head is the third person Agr (cf. (27a.) and the DP is in spec of D. This is similar to what has been proposed to underlie clitic doubling (Uriagereka 1995a, Kayne 2001). (27)

a. nineteenth century vP v⬘

DP DP A Maria (28)

(28)’ (29)

a. Cantou

b. twentieth century vP

D -u (3sg, nom) a Maria

v⬘

DP D

NP

A

Maria

samba.

(nineteenth century)

sang-3-sg the Maria samba ‘Mary sang samba.’ a. [vP a Maria-u v [VP canto- samba]] b. [IP cantoV-ui [vP a Maria-ti tV [ tV samba]] d. A Maria cantou samba. the Maria sang samba ‘Mary sang samba.’

 19th (29)’ a. b. c.

(nineteenth or twentieth century)

century derivation [vP a Maria-u v [V’ canto- samba]] [IP cantV-oui [vP a Maria-t-i [ tV samba]] [SP A Maria [IP cantoV-ui [vP tmaria -t-i [ tV samba]]

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

129

 20th century derivation (29)’’ a. [vP a Mariai v [VP cantou samba.]] b. [IP a Mariai cantouV [vP ti tV [VP tV samba ]]] Notice that, in the nineteenth century, Agr is still pronominal, and what is raised to check the features of T/INFL is the pronominal Agr. The DP a Maria is assumed to be just a modifier, and can be stranded as a post-verbal subject as in (29)’b. or raised to an A’ position as in (29)’c. In the twentieth century, Agr loses its pronominal properties, and can no longer check the T features. The verb starts to appear fully inflected in the numeration (Kato 1999).11 What is merged as the argument is the DP or a weak pronoun. 7.6.2 Refining the periphery Ordoñez and Olarrea have used the refined sentential periphery in (30), following Kayne and Pollock’s (2001) analysis for ‘stylistic inversion’, but, though using the same frame, we will consider a slightly modified version in (31). The last movement of the wh-element, is to ForceP, as the wh-operator has a double function in interrogatives: it is an operator and it also checks the interrogative force in languages that do not have a specific clause-typing complementizer like the Japanese -ka. (30)

[OP2 [ GroundP [ TopP [ OP1]]]]

(31)

[ForceP [GroundP [TopP [OP]]]]

The authors have not exploited the low vP periphery, proposed by Belletti (2004), which I will consider to be a contrastive topic phrase (TopP): (32)

[IP [TopP [vP [VP ]]]]

nineteenth century (33) a. Que comi ontem? what ate-1sg yesterday ‘What did I eat yesterday?’ b. Que comi EU ontem? what ate-1sg ME yesterday ‘ME, what did I eat yesterday?’ c. Que comeu a Maria ontem? what ate-3sg the Maria yesterday ‘What did Maria eat yesterday? The input vP is different in the three cases, but what they have in common is that the external argument is Agr or Agr with a DP as its spec. Sentence (33b.), in 11 Recall that in Chomsky (1995), verbs are merged fully inflected. But see also Galves (1993) and Speas (1994), who argue that in NS languages, Agr is merged separately from the verb.

130

Mary Aizawa Kato

addition, has a strong pronoun in the vP periphery, and (33c.) has a spec added to the head Agr: (33)’ a. Input: [vP -i v [ VP come- o que ontem]] b. Input: [TopP EU [vP -i v [ VP come- o que ontem]] c. Input [vP [a Maria[-u]] v [VP come- o que ontem]] In the three cases, the verb moves to INFL and the pronominal Agr adjoins to it: (33)’’

a. [IP come-i [vP ti tV [VP tV o que ontem ]]] b. [IP come-i [TopP EU [vP ti tV [VP tV o que ontem ]]]] c. [IP come-ui [vP a Maria[ ti ] tV [VP tV o que ontem ]]]

The following step is movement of the wh-element to OP: (33)’’’

a. [OP o que [IP come-i [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]]] b. [OP o que [IP come-i [TopP EU [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]]]] c. [OP o que [IP come-ui [vP a Maria[ ti ] tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]]]

Next, the IP moves to target GroundP, where it is interpreted as presupposition: (33)IV

a. [GroundP [IP come-i [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]] [OP o que [IP . . . ..]]] b. [GroundP [IP come-i [TopP EU [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]]] [OP o que [IP . . . ..]]] c. [GroundP [IP come-ui [vP a Maria[ ti ] tV [VP tV to que ontem ]]]] [OP o que [IP . . . ..]]

Last, the wh-element moves to ForceP to check the force, or the clause-typing feature: (33)V

a. [ForceP O que [GroundP [IP come-i [vP . . . . . . . . . ontem]]] [OP to que . . . ]] b. [ForceP O que [GroundP [IP come-i [TopP EU[vP . . . . . . . . . ..ontem ]]] [OP to que . . . ]]] c. [ForceP O que [GroundP[IP come-ui [vP a Maria[ ti ] tV [VP . . . ..ontem ]]] [OP to que]]]

In the new grammar, with the subject preposed, what is merged as the external argument is a pronoun or a DP, and not a pronominal affix. The derivation proceeds as in the examples below. twentieth century (34) a. O que eu[¼ô] comi ontem? what I ate yesterday ‘What did I eat yesterday?’ b. O que a Maria comeu ontem? what the Maria ate yesterday ‘What did Maria eat yesterday?’

Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish

131

(34)’

a. [vP eu[¼ô] v [VP comi o que ontem]] b. [VP A Maria v [VP comeu o que ontem ]]

(34)’’

a. [IP eu[¼ô] comiV [vP teu tV [VP tV o que ontem]]] b. [IP A Mariai comeuV [vP ti tV [VP tV o que ontem]]]

(34)’’’

a. [OP O que [IP eu[¼ô] comiV [vP teu tV [VP tV to que ontem]]]] b. [OP O que [IP A Mariai comeuV [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem]]]]

(34)IV

a. [GroundP [IP eu[¼ô] comiV [vP teu tV [VP tV to que ontem] [OP o que [ tIP]]]]] b. [GroundP [IP A Mariai comeuV [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem] [OP o que [tIP]]]]]

(34)V

a. [ForceP O que [GroundP [IP eu[¼ô] comiV [vP teu tV [VP tV to que ontem] [OP to que [tIP]]]]]] b. [ForceP O que [GroundP [IP A Mariai comeuV [vP ti tV [VP tV to que ontem] [OP to que[tIP]]]]]]

7.6.3 The implementation of the changes A final question has to do with the implementation of the changes. We have to account for the reason why the WhSV order was delayed with DPs, but also why the third person pronouns took more time in losing their null counterparts. The answer can be found in Roberts (2007), who claims that changes related to the substantive lexicon take place in a gradual way, while functional items undergo parametric change. This explains why the order of WhSV was gradual with DPs, but not with pronouns. But it does not explain why pronouns did not lose the null counterpart in a uniform way. We can attribute the cause to the mixed nature of pronouns. As happened with auxiliary selection in Romance, which is both lexical and functional, personal pronouns can be assumed to have such mixed nature and, thus, expected to have such gradual change. In sum, when gradual, change would proceed affecting categories in the following way: (35)

þ functional > þ functional, þ lexical > þ lexical

7.7 Conclusions The type of weak pronoun that a language has can determine its typology in more than one aspect of its grammar. Here we saw two such changes. Weak pronouns of the free type occupy spec of IP/TP and strong pronouns occupy the high sentence periphery or the low vP periphery. Contrary to previous assumption that DPs occupy only peripheric positions like the strong pronouns, I proposed that DPs

132

Mary Aizawa Kato

are always merged in spec of VP or as its modifier. From these positions, they would move to spec of TP or to an A’ position. I adapted Ordoñez and Olarrea’s (2006) analysis of Kayne and Pollock’s 2001 account of stylistic inversion, adding Belletti’s (2004) low vP periphery besides the IP periphery, to account for the different orders in wh-questions in both old and new BP and CS. I suggest that the main difference between the two phases in whquestions is the exclusive use of the IP periphery in contemporary BP and CS as opposed to the use of the low vP periphery in the old grammar. With this chapter, I hope to have answered one of Kayne’s (2000: 6) questions in his microparametric endeavour: ‘What are the minimal units of syntactic variation?’ In the new grammars, a) the weak pronouns are of the free type while in the old grammar they are of the affixal type, and b) in the new grammar the discourse projections are reduced to the IP periphery.

Appendix: the database The primary sources included in the database are listed below containing: a) original edition, b) author, c) title, d) abbreviation of title used in the examples, reference to the edition used: 1818 1861 1882 1882 1845 1891 1937 1955 1994

Tojeiro, Gastão. O simpático Jeremias (OSJ). Sociedade Brasileira de Autores Teatrais. Uni-Rio. Eiró, Paulo. Sangue Limpo. (SL). 2nd ed. Departamento de Cultura-Divisão do Arquivo Histórico, São Paulo, 1949. França Júnior, J. de. Como se fazia um deputado. (CFD) Teatro de França Júnior. Tomo II. Serviço Nacional de Teatro. Fundação da Arte. 1980. França Júnior, J. de. Caiu o Ministério (COM). Teatro de França Júnior. Tomo II. Serviço Nacional de Teatro. Fundação da Arte. 1980. Martins Pena, L. C. O Noviço (ON). As melhores comédias de Martins Pena. Porto Alegre: Mercado Aberto, 1987. Azevedo, Arthur. O Tribofe (OT). Estudo linguístico de Rachel Teixeira Valença, Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro, 1986. Gonzaga, Armando. O hóspede do quarto n8 2 (OHQ2). Sociedade Brasileira de Autores Teatrais. Uni-Rio. Fernandes, M. Um elefante no caos (UEC). Porto Alegre: LPM Editores. 1979. The subcorpus NILC-São Carlos for Brazilian Portuguese http://acdc. linguateca.pt/.

8 Macroparametric change and the synthetic–analytic dimension The case of Ancient Egyptian CHRIS H. REINTGES

8.1 Introduction This chapter reconsiders a restrictive theory of grammar change in the light of the re-energized debate on the nature of syntactic parameters (Baker 2008b; Biberauer 2008b; Richards 2008; Roberts and Holmberg 2010). Much work in comparative syntax has been devoted to the study of closely related languages and language varieties (or dialects), with a view to detecting microparametric settings. In affecting individual lexical and functional items, microparameters represent local points of variation with only limited clustering effects (Kayne 2000, 2005a). When extended to the domain of diachronic syntactic variation, changes in word order and clausal structure are derived from shifting parameter values. Accordingly, the parameter values specified for a given language are not fixed once and for all, but ‘can change as a function of time’ (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 11). A microparametric comparison of different états de langue accommodates the broad type of change known as grammaticalization, i.e. the creation of new functional categories out of lexical material. This approach fares less well, however, when it comes to explaining major typological shifts in language history, with several grammatical phenomena changing at the same time. Here I explore the possibility that large-scale changes in grammar may be on account of the diachronic resetting of a macroparameter. Macroparameters are the kind of parameters that define in one fell swoop a cluster of significant properties. That languages cluster across categories and domains has already been acknowledged in traditional morphological typology, with its fourfold division of the world’s languages into agglutinative, analytic, fusional, and polysynthetic languages (Greenberg 1974: 35–41; Comrie 1989: 42–52). Holistic morphological typology has been

134

Chris H. Reintges

criticized as incoherent and useless for conflating too many different variables (Anderson 1985: 9–10; Comrie 1989: 52; Spencer 1991: 37–9; Haspelmath 2009). However, canonical types seem to be more than just accidental collections of morphological properties. Baker (2008b: 355) writes that ‘there seems to be a certain global unity to a head-final as opposed to a head-initial language, or to a polysynthetic as contrasted with a more isolating language, which seems more pervasive than can be attributed to any particular lexical item, or even a small class of lexical items’. Provided that holistic morphological types are the surface manifestation of a positively set macroparameter, the change from one morphological type to another can be seen as the net result of parameter resetting. Ideally, one hopes to find historical cases in which major changes in the inflectional system have far-reaching consequences in different components of the grammar. Ancient Egyptian (AfroAsiatic) is such a case of a language that developed from predominantly agglutinative–synthetic type into a thoroughly analytic one. A constructive way of looking at the analyticization process would be in terms of shifting phases, whereby the verbal domain ceased to be a phase at the PF side of the derivation. When considered from this perspective, Ancient Egyptian provides a showcase for diachronic variation in phasal syntax.

8.2 Micro- versus macroparameters in interlanguage variation In Government and Binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1982), natural language is conceptualized as a system of general principles which interact to form complex structures. To account for syntactic diversity across languages, there is a limited space of variation, with a particular clustering of properties being amenable to a small number of syntactic parameters. (1) Parametrizability of universal principles What we expect to find, then, is a highly structured theory of UG based on a number of fundamental principles that sharply restrict the class of attainable grammars and narrowly constrain their form, but with parameters that have to be fixed by experience. If these parameters are embedded in a theory of UG that is sufficiently rich in structure, then the languages that are determined by fixing their values one way or another will appear to be quite diverse, since the consequences of one set of choices may be very different from the consequences of another set (Chomsky 1981: 2–3).

The premise that the general principles of UG are directly parametrizable has been abandoned in favour of the lexical parametrization hypothesis (Borer 1984; Fukui 1986; Chomsky 1995)—now better known as the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC). Under the BCC parameters are restricted to the formal features of functional categories, which vary considerably across languages. In reflecting lexical properties,

Macroparametric change

135

the parameters connected with functional categories fall outside of the domain of the computational system proper. (2) The Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC) Within the P&P [principles-and-parameters] approach the problems of typology and language variation arise in somewhat different form than before. Language differences and typology should be reducible to the choice of values of parameters. One approach is that parameters are restricted to formal features with no interpretation at the interface. A still stronger one is that they are restricted to formal features of functional categories (Chomsky 1995: 6) [emphasis in the text, CHR].

Although not necessarily requiring it, the BCC favours a microparametric approach, which looks for localized differences between genetically related languages. Kayne (2005b) takes this raison d’être even further and posits a one-to-one correspondence between microparameters on the one hand and individual lexical and functional categories on the other hand. (3) A one-to-one correspondence between microparameters and lexical/functional categories (i) Every parameter is a microparameter (Kayne 2005a: 10). (ii) Every functional element made available by UG is associated with some syntactic parameter (Kayne 2005a: 11). (iii) UG imposes a maximum of one interpretable syntactic feature per lexical or functional element (Kayne 2005a: 15).

However, as Baker (1996: 7) points out, the proliferation of narrow and sometimes item-specific parameters vastly reduces their efficiency as explanatory devices, with the result that microparameters have become no more general than the constructions of traditional grammar. The classic notion of a parameter as a choice point in an otherwise universal system has proven quite successful in drastically reducing the amount of actually occurring interlanguage variation. (4) Language as a finite system of discrete differences (i) There are some parameters within the statements of the general principles that shape natural language syntax (Baker 2008b: 354). (ii) Large-impact parameters ( . . . ) might be heuristically significant because they tend to point to loci of variation in the grammar as opposed to the lexicon (Baker 2008b: 356).

Baker (2008b: 358–63) presents two compelling arguments for existence of macroparameters alongside with microparameters. First, in harmonic languages with consistent head-initial or head-final order, the reduction of the head directionality parameter to a set of lexically based microparameters would entail massive redundancy. This is so because the head–complement order would have to be specified separately for every word class or, even worse, for each and every lexical item. The second argument is a statistical one. If all interlanguage variation were microparametric in nature, one would expect to find a relatively smooth continuum of

136

Chris H. Reintges

languages without any coarse-grained head-initial and head-final types. The typological record shows otherwise: the vast majority of the world’s languages are consistently harmonic in an across-the-board fashion or with respect to syntactic category membership. Cases of disharmonic ordering evolve when microparametric variation interferes with macroparametric setting, causing some degree of ‘noise’ around the peaks in the distribution of pure head-initial or head-final languages. If syntactic parameters as conceived by the BCC are connected with the feature content of functional categories, macroparametric variation can be seen as resulting from the cumulative effects of interacting microparameters. According to Roberts and Holmberg (2010: 40–41), the macroparametric clustering effects follow from a preference of the language acquirer for identical or harmonic settings holding among a subset of microparameters. (5) Macroparameters as aggregations of microparameters (i) If acquirers assign a marked value to [head] H, they will assign the same value to all comparable heads. (ii) Macroparametric effects arise from aggregations of microparameters acting in concert for markedness reasons (Roberts and Holmberg 2010: 41).

It may very well be the case that the clustering effects that we see with accumulating microparameters lay beneath medium-sized parameters. However, such composite parameters are not of the same order as the macroparameters on top of Baker’s (2001: 183, figure 6.4) parameter hierarchy. If macroparameters are responsible for the major typological divisions of the world’s languages, there should be more than one such large-scale parameter. Huang (2008) presents a strong case for an analytic macroparameter, with Mandarin Chinese exhibiting high analyticity over a full range of lexical and functional categories. In dispensing with verb movement altogether, the language differs profoundly from Turkish, in which rigidly ordered functional morphemes must be merged with the verbal root via head movement (Julien 2002). Roberts and Holmberg (2010: 44, footnote 23) furthermore propose that there may be no genuine fusional parameter. Rather, inflection/fusion seems to represent a marked system that evolves when none of the three macroparameters of agglutination, analyticization, and polysynthesis is set to a positive value.

8.3 Derivational syntax and the phase effects of tense This section explores some theoretical consequences of the macroparametric view, with particular attention for the role of tense in the narrow syntax—the computational system that relates structured expressions to the phonological and the semantic interface. In standard phase theory (Chomsky 2001b, 2004, 2007, 2008), syntactic derivation progresses incrementally through cyclic domains called phases. Phases are composed of a phase head, an active left periphery (the edge), and a complement

Macroparametric change

137

domain. Once a phasal cycle has been completed, its domain is closed off for further computation. Efficiency in the computational process is taken care of by the phase impenetrability condition (PIC), which prevents derivationally later operations from referring back to parts of the structure already processed at the interfaces. Right from the outset, the strictly cyclic nature of the mappings to the interface raises an important question of how to delineate the relevant chunks of the derivation. Chomsky (2004: 107, 2007: 17–21) acknowledges both transitive v*P (where star is for transitive) and CP as phases in the clausal system, to the exclusion of unaccusative/passive VPs and finite tense. The privileged status of v* and C as phase-inducing heads was first explained from interface conditions, requiring that phases ‘should be semantically and phonologically coherent and independent’ (Chomsky 2004: 124). As many researchers have commented (inter alia: den Dikken 2007: 29–30; Boeckx and Grohmann 2007: 217), the TP is certainly the closest syntactic counterpart to a proposition in root contexts. As is well known, it can undergo right-node raising, as in Mary wonders when and John wonders why— [TP Peter left], and hence meets the criterion of PF independence. More recently, Chomsky (2008: 143) acknowledges that the failure of Tense to define a phase boundary alongside C seems problematic, since on the surface it looks as if Tense rather than C constitutes ‘the locus of w-features that are involved in the nominative–agreement system’. Despite appearances to the contrary, Chomsky (2008: 195) considers the w- and the tense features borne by Tense not to be indigenous to the head itself, but rather to be part of the feature composition of the phase head C. Both feature sets are acquired by Tense via downwards feature percolation—a process dubbed feature inheritance.1 The move away from an interface conception of phases may solve some of the problems but it also raises new ones: for the feature inheritance model to work, it must be stipulated that all clauses project up to the CP level (see Chomsky 2007: 20 note 27 for a statement to this effect). Yet, considerations of representational economy would lead one to expect that a complementizer layer is projected only when needed. It is widely believed that root clauses are interpreted as declaratives by default, i.e. without resorting to a null complementizer as a force indicating head (see Roberts 2005: 123–4 and the references cited therein). Against this background, I would like to pursue an alternative route, namely that the choice between v*P and TP as the first-phase domain may be parametrizable. The idea of parametric variation in phasal syntax was first proposed by Gallego (2006), but abandoned in favour of a phase sliding approach in his recent mono1 Richards (2007: 566–70) presents a conceptual argument for the feature inheritance model: Tense is turned into a derivate probe once w- and tense features have been passed down from the selecting C head. On the premise that the complement of a phase is transferred earlier than the head (by virtue of the PIC), C’s unvalued features are valued at exactly the point when the TP complement is handed over to the two interfaces.

138

Chris H. Reintges

graph (Gallego 2010). Simplifying matters somewhat, phase sliding involves a domain extending operation through which the v*P phase is pushed one level up. In null subject languages, this is accomplished via verb-to-tense movement, which effectively renders the temporal projection TP a hybrid phasal domain (see Gallego 2010: 108–12 for further discussion and explication). Despite its initial conceptual appeal, the phase sliding approach turns out to be too restrictive when it comes to the situation in analytic languages—a point to which I will return shortly. My point of departure is Biberauer and Roberts’ (2010: 265–8) conjecture that the richness of tense inflection provides an equally effective parameter as rich agreement in accounting for the well-known verb movement asymmetries between Romance and Germanic languages. Richness of tense is broadly defined in terms of paradigmatic oppositions for temporal, aspectual, and modal distinctions. Even where temporal, aspectual, and modal features are aligned with a functional head in the extended projection of the verb, these features are connected with a single inflection or a set of inflections in those languages that have the relevant morphology to begin with. Consequently, these features are implicated in probe–goal relations that drive core syntactic processes. In drawing a principled distinction between agreement and tense inflection, Biberauer and Roberts’ (2010) typological model system is flexible enough to carry over to agreementless languages such as Mandarin Chinese and Coptic Egyptian. Here I propose to connect the inflectional richness of tense to its phasal characteristics. More formally, this can be stated as follows: (6) Richness of tense inflection and the phasal characteristics of the Tense Phrase (i) In languages with rich tense inflection, the Tense head is endowed with enough unvalued features to render it an active probe. (ii) Reprojective verb-to-tense movement renders the temporal projection a hybrid firstphase domain in fusional and agglutinative languages. By contrast, the presence of independent tense/aspect particles in Tense blocks reprojective verb-to-tense movement in languages of the analytic/isolating type. (iii) In analytic languages, the verb–tense relation is accomplished in the syntax via an abstract feature computation procedure—the syntactic relation Agree (see Chomsky 2000 et seq.; Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005).

The morphological category of the exponents of tense are determined by a language’s parameter setting and may therefore be susceptible to inflectional change. The next section takes a closer look at the analyticization process that Ancient Egyptian underwent in the course of its history.

8.4 The synthetic–analytic dimension in Egyptian historical morphology Within the formal parameters of Biberauer and Roberts’ (2010) model, Ancient Egyptian can be classified as a language with rich tense inflection and virtually no

Macroparametric change

139

subject–verb agreement.2 The rich tense inflection comes in different morphological guises though. Coptic, its most recent stage (from around the third to the eleventh century ad), falls near the isolating pole of the synthetic–analytic continuum. The analytic functional evolved historically from an essentially agglutinative model, which is represented in its purest form by Old Egyptian (2600–2000 bc). Morphological change occurs in tandem with a typological shift from a rigid verb–subject– object (VSO) to a flexible subject–verb–object (SVO) language. In the Old Egyptian VSO structure (7), the clause-initial finite verb ms-n ‘has born’ is inflected for tense and aspect by the perfect suffix -n. In the corresponding Coptic SVO structure (8), the perfect tense/aspect particle a and the lexical verb stem mise ‘to give birth’ appear on either side of the subject DP t@-kjamaule ‘the she-camel’. Neither the tenseinflected verb in Old Egyptian nor the tense/aspect particle in Coptic exhibits any sort of agreement with the adjacent subject DP.3 (7)

VSO clause with tense/aspect suffix -n (Old Egyptian) ms-n Nww Mrjj-n(j)-R¿ hr dZrt-f  give.birth-prf ocean.m.sg Meri-ni-Re.m.sg on hand.f.sg-poss.3m.sg j?b-t left-f.sg ‘The ocean has born (King) Meri-ni-Re on his left hand’ (Pyramid Text 1701a/M)

(8)

SVO clause with tense/aspect particle a (Coptic) mise @n-u-Seere @n-shime a t@-kjamaule prf def.f.sg-camel.f.sg give.birth.abs prep-indf.sg-girl.f.sg link-woman.f.pl ‘The she-camel delivered a daughter’ (Mena, Miracles 10b, 33–34)

2 To be more precise, Coptic is a language without agreement of any type. Person, number, and gender markings on lexical and functional heads can be identified with pronominal clitics, which are strict complementary distribution with full DPs (Reintges 2001: 177–80). Old and Middle Egyptian represents a somewhat different case. The language possesses two finite verb paradigms. The pronominal suffixes of the so-called Eventive paradigm can be identified with enclitic subject pronouns. By contrast, the corresponding person, number, and gender markings of the Stative paradigm represent grammatical agreement proper: they co-occur with preverbal subject DPs and license null subjects in first and second person contexts (for further discussion, see Reintges 2005a: 44–59). 3 The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: 1, 2, 3 ‘first, second, third person’; abs ‘absolute state’; ant.past ‘anterior past’; aux ‘auxiliary verb’; caus ‘causative prefix’; caus.inf ‘causative infinitive’; cl.obj. ‘direct object clitic’; comp ‘complementizer’; cond ‘conditional’; conj ‘conjunctive’; cop ‘pronominal copula’; def ‘definite article’; dem ‘demonstrative article’; du ‘dual number’; f ‘feminine gender’; foc ‘focus marker’; fut.deon ‘deontic future’ fut.epist ‘epistemic future’; hab ‘habitual aspect’; imp ‘imperative’; ipfv ‘imperfective’; indf ‘indefinite article’; inf ‘infinitive’; link ‘genitival linker’; m ‘masculine gender’; neg ‘negation’; neg.aux ‘negative auxiliary verb’; neg.hab ‘negative habitual’; neg.imp ‘negative imperative’; neg.prf ‘negative perfect’; neg.pfx ‘negative prefix’; nom ‘nominal state’; nominal ‘nominalizing affix’; opt ‘opative’; pass ‘passive morpheme’; pcl ‘particle’; prf ‘perfect tense’; pfv ‘perfective/neutral aspect’; pl ‘plural’; plur ‘pluractional stem pattern’; poss ‘possessive pronoun’; prp ‘prepositional object marker’; prs ‘present tense’; pret ‘preterite tense’; pron ‘pronominal state’; Q ‘question particle’; rel ‘relative particle’; sg ‘singular’; stat ‘stative’; term ‘terminative aspect’. Glosses are given in parentheses for morphemes that have no surface-segmental shape.

140

Chris H. Reintges

Old Egyptian is considered a synthetic–agglutinative language, in which concatenative and non-concatenative affixes encode tense, aspect, and mood distinctions as well as grammatical voice (passive, stative, causative) (Loprieno 1995: 51–2; Reintges 1997: 40–2). A case in point is the pluractional causative s-n-fx-fx-n ‘has released’ in (9a.), which can be decomposed into five verbal segments. These are, from left to right, the causative prefix s-, the obsolete lexical formative n-, the root fx ‘to release’, the reduplicative suffix fx of the pluractional stem, and the perfect suffix -n. The tense and aspect inflected verb stem can further be expanded by adding the passive morpheme -tj, as in the case of the pluractional perfect passive ? m-m-n-tj ‘has been seized’ in (9b.). The maximally inflected verb expresses up to five categories that are rigidly ordered: prefixes > root > reduplicant > tense/aspect suffix > passive suffix. (9) Agglutinative verb clusters with 3–4 inflectional categories (Old Egyptian) a. s-n-fx-fx-n Gbb ¿r-t(j)-f caus-pfx-release-plur-prf Geb.m.sg jaw-f.du-poss.3m.sg tn hr DZht(j)-nxt for Thoth-nakht.f.sg dem.f.sg ‘(The god) Geb released his two jaws for this Thoth-nakht (here) (the female deceased)’ (Coffin Texts VI 102b/B3Bo) b. n(j) ?m-m-n-t(j) b?-f jn S?-w neg seize-plur-prf-pass2 soul.m.sg -poss.3m.sg foc pig-m.pl ‘His soul cannot be seized by the pigs’ (Coffin Texts I 397b/B1Bo) To decide on the morphological status of Coptic particles, cluster formation warrants closer inspection. In the Coptic descriptive tradition, it has long been observed that tense/aspect and relative particles form sequences of more than two elements (e.g. Layton 2000: 324 §398, 336–7 §417). The initial element in a triple cluster is the relative particle e. It combines with the paired tense and aspect particles ne and a, which together form a compound tense. A case in point is the relative pluperfect e ne a-f O:s@k ‘had lasted’ in (10a.). The converbal preterit perfect e ne nt a-i eire ‘if I had done’ in (10b.) reveals that the maximum number of particles in a cluster is four. (10)

Triple and quadruple particle clusters (Coptic) e ne a-f O:s@k tSin @nt a-f mu: a. tSe comp rel pretprf-3m.sg last.abs since rel prf-3m.sg die.abs ‘(Pilatus asked the soldier) if he (Jesus) had already been dead’ (Mark 15, 44) @n-kjons ( . . . ) b. e ne nt a-i eire gar @n-u-tSi rel pretrel prf-1sg do.abs pcl prep-indf.sg-take.abs prep-violence.abs ‘If then I had committed an act of violence ( . . . )’ (Acts 25, 11)

Macroparametric change

141

As bound inflectional morphemes, Old Egyptian tense/aspect suffixes cannot occur without a verbal host. The situation is different for auxiliary verbs, which share with main verbs their verb-initial syntax and, to a certain extent, their compatibility with tense and aspect morphology. The auxiliary verb construction thus formed consists of two or more finite verbs in series, as exemplified in (11) (see Reintges 1997: 76–83, 298–303, 2005a: 71–2 for further discussion). (11)

Auxiliary verb construction with double occurrence of the perfect marker -n (Old Egyptian) wn-n mdw-n tSw Hr be.aux-prf speak-prf cl.obj.2m.sg Horus.m.sg ‘(The god) Horus had addressed you’ (Coffin Texts I 307h/T9C)

Coptic has a syntactic variant of clitic left-dislocation (CLLD), in which two copies of the same tense/aspect particle surface in two different places: the lower particle copy is placed in the regular presubject position, while the higher copy surfaces in front of the CLDDed topic. Elsewhere (Reintges 2011), I show that this construction involves head movement of the presubject particle, followed by the pronunciation of the displaced item in the tail and in the target position of the movement chain. (12) Head movement of the perfect particle a around a CLLDed subject DP (Coptic) a ne-rO:me de @m-p@-ma et @mmau prf def.pl-man.m pcl link-def.m.sg-place.m rel there a-u: weh p@-sO:ma @m-p@-makarios prf-3pl place.nom def.m.sg-body.m link-def.m.sg-blessed.m.sg Apa Me:na epeset h@m p@-kjamul Apa Mena pcl from def.m.sg-camel.m.sg ‘The people of that place let the body of the blessed Apa Mena down from the camel’ (Mena, Martyrdom 5a, 14–20) The syntactically observable head movement that we see with Coptic particles would receive a natural explanation if these free functional morphemes actually represented somewhat more grammaticalized versions of auxiliary verbs. Attractive though as this reasoning may seem, there are grounds here for distinguishing tense/ aspect particles from the category of uninflected auxiliaries of the Greenbergian (1963: 85, 93) word order typology. One such distinguishing factor is phonological dependence. Old Egyptian has an uninflected auxiliary verb jw, which can be separated from the main verb by enclitic particles (Reintges 1997: 130–5). (13)

Auxiliary jw > particle swt > main verb > DP subject > DP object (Old Egyptian) jw swt dZj-n M hw ¿-f m s-¿nx-s aux pcl give-prf Mehu order-poss.3m.sg about caus-live.inf-poss.3f.sg ‘Mehu has put his order to support her ( . . . )’ (pap. Cairo CG 58043, col. 9–10)

142

Chris H. Reintges

By contrast, Coptic tense and aspect particles can never be separated from the linearly adjacent subject DP by enclitic function words. Rather, the inferential particle kje ‘therefore’ in (14) must be positioned to the right of the DP subject in clause-fourth position. This generally shows that presubject particles must be subordinate in accent to the following phrasal constituent (Polotsky 1987/1990: 184–5 §16; Reintges 2004: 246–7 §7.1.1). (14)

Habitual particle Sare > DP subject > particle kje > verb > object (Coptic) eStSe Sare p@-hairetikos k je m@n p@-h@llen if hab def.m.sg-heretic.m.sg pcl with def.m.sg-pagan.m.sg (...) pO:r@S eßol @n-ne-u:-kjitS spread.abs pcl prep-def.pl-poss.3pl-arm.m ‘When the heretic and the pagan open their arms ( . . . )’ (Shenoute, Amélineau I 3, 337, 1)

A general point to note about auxiliary verbs is that they are phonologically dependent clitics in many languages, which must be attached to a host word (e.g. Spencer 1991: 350–1; Muysken 2008: 40–1). One might therefore ask whether the attachment of the presubject tense/aspect particle to the linearly adjacent phrasal constituent—in our case, the subject DP—represents a straightforward case of cliticization of this type. The habitual aspect particle comes in two forms, the shorter base form Sa and the lengthened allomorph Sare. By adding the element -re to the base form, the erstwhile monosyllabic particle is transformed into a disyllabic one, with the result that it can form a well-formed foot on its own. Since -re epenthesis applies when encliticization is excluded, the attachment of the longer form Sare to the adjacent phrasal constituent may better be analyzed as an instance of leaning or ‘liaison’, in Klavans’ (1985) terminology. It is clear, then, that Coptic particles are syntactically independent, but prosodically dependent function words. In this respect, they are categorially distinguished from the bound inflectional affixes of the agglutinative system. Even so, phonological dependencies need not map directly onto syntactic dependencies, as many linguists have observed (Zwicky 1985: 291; Klavans 1985: 97–8; Embick 2003: 326).

8.5 Analyticization and the emergence of T/Aux–S–V–O order Before we turn to consider the parametric differences between the agglutinative and analytic stages in further detail, I would like to point out some broader implications of high analyticity for the syntactic encoding of the verb–tense relationship. Baker (2002) formulates a restrictive theory of building and merging, not checking, according to which the computational system has at its disposal only two options for the union of the verbal root with tense inflection. The first option is verb movement to

Macroparametric change

143

the tense node, which hosts the relevant tense and agreement morphology. In French (15a.), the finite verb precedes the clause-internal adverb souvent, while it follows its English counterpart often (15b.). Following Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1991) and many others, this contrast has been taken to show that the finite verb moves to tense in French, but not in English. The English case (15b.) also exemplifies the second option for the union between the verb and the tense marking, which involves the postsyntactic merger of the two elements under linear adjacency. In Bobaljik’s (2002) system, the merger operation is blocked by intervening specifiers and complements, but not by traces or by adjoined elements, including adjuncts. (15) Adverb distribution as a diagnostics for finite verb movement a. Jean embrasse souvent Marie. a.’ *Jean souvent embrasse Marie. (French) b. John often kisses Mary. b.’ *John kisses often Mary. (English) Baker’s theory thus excludes more abstract syntactic relations between the verb and the morphemes carrying temporal information, in particular, Chomsky’s (1995: 228–35, 238–41) checking theory, according to which verbs come out of the lexicon fully inflected and check their features in the course of the derivation. A typological prediction arises from the theory just outlined, namely that there should be no stable T/Aux–S–V–O languages, even though this may seem a semantically plausible word order. The argument runs as follows: if the tense particle or the tensed auxiliary precedes the subject and the verb, verb-to-tense movement could not have applied. At the same time, postsyntactic merger must be excluded on the grounds that the subject DP counts as an intervening specifier (Baker 2002: 323–5). In spite of this, Aux–S–V–O order is attested in Welsh compound tenses. Example (16) features the periphrastic preterite, which is formed with the light verb gwneud ‘to do’ and a verbal noun (cf. Borsley et al. 2007: 41–2).4 (16)

4

Aux–S–V–O order in compound tenses (Modern Welsh) Naeth y dyn brynu car did the man buy-vn car ‘The man did buy a car’ (Slightly adapted from Baker 2002: 322)

In Baker’s (2002: 323) typology, Modern Welsh is classified as a verb-raising and as a subject-in-situ language, with ‘the tensed verb coming before the subject, in a different position from the nonfinite verb’. In an earlier analysis by Sproat (1985: 202), Aux–S–V–O order was argued to have the same underlying SVO configurationality as canonical VSO clauses, but with auxiliary verb insertion rather than verb movement to C. Based on the distribution of adverbs and complementizers, Roberts (2005: 19–41) shows that a generalized verb-to-C analysis of Welsh VSO order can no longer be sustained, since verb movement never exceeds the inflectional domain.

144

Chris H. Reintges

For Baker (2002: 324, 2003: 28), the Aux–S–V–O order in Welsh compound tenses is not a real counter example to his typological claims, as the canonical word order of the language is VSO, with all verbs and not just auxiliaries moving to the left of the subject. This move is, however, not entirely convincing: if UG provides only two options for the union of a verbal root with tense, one must ask how Aux–S–V–O order could ever emerge as an alternative basic word order. Regardless of their exact hierarchical position, if the tense particle and the lexical verb appear on either side of the subject, neither verb movement nor morphological merger could have been applied. This question becomes even more pressing in the light of the Coptic word order facts. The basic word order can be identified as T/Aux–S–V–O on the grounds that this is the order that involves a minimal amount of syntactic structure and morphological marking. It is also the dominant word order in simple declarative clauses without topicalized or focalized constituents (see Comrie 1989: 87–91 for ways to identify basic and derived orders in word order typology). Consider in this regard example (17). (17)

Basic T/Aux–S–V–O word order (Coptic) a t@-sophia ket u-e:ï prf def.f.sg-wisdom.f.sg build.nom indf.sg-house.m ‘Wisdom has built a house for herself ’ (Proverbs 9, 1)

na-s for-3f.sg

Coptic T–S–V–O order falls out naturally from the language’s parameter setting. Because of the positive value of the analytic macroparameter, temporal, aspectual, and modal connotations are coded by free-standing particles (but see Baker 2002: 326 note 4 for a claim to the contrary). Presubject particles are located in an uplifted Tense head, which correlates in structural height with the Fin(iteness)-head of the Rizzian (1997) cartography. The non-projecting Tense head dominates a modal projection MoodP, which contains in its specifier the subject constituent. The mood head, on its part, provides a landing site for the lexical verb stem but may also host the epistemic future particle na, the deontic future particle e, and the conditional particle San. All three preverbal particles are arguably related not only to tense but also to modality. The skeleton of functional projections in root contexts is schematically represented in tree diagram (18) (which corresponds to the simple declarative clause in (17)). The resulting sequence of functional heads Tense > Mood > Aspect is in accordance with Cinque’s (1999: 58–9, 106–7) universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections. (Strikeout indicates the copies left behind by movement; the agree relation is marked by the dotted line.)

Macroparametric change (18)

145

The order of functional heads in Coptic clause structure

TP ei Tense0 MoodP g ei Perfect particle Subject MoodP g g ei a AspectP tə -sophia Mood0 g ei Object AspectP Verb g ei ket u-εï v ∗P Aspect0 ei Verb OBJ-CL v∗P local agree relation between the tense particle na-s ei v∗P Subject and the lexical verb stem

Verb

...

Object

The merge of tense/aspect particles in a left-peripheral head creates a situation reminiscent of that in Welsh, where verb movement to the C-domain is excluded (Roberts 2005: 120–4; Rouveret 2010: 260–1; cf. also Borsley et al. 2007: 287–98 for the loss of verb second in pre-modern Welsh). Consequently, Coptic no longer shows the verb second effects, which are still observable in Old Egyptian. I will elaborate on this issue in the next section.

8.6 Macroparametric differences between the agglutinating and the analytic system The drift towards a maximally general pattern of analyticity that we observe for Egyptian diachrony shows some points of contact with the evolution of Classical Chinese. Huang (2010: 402) notes that ‘[t]he development of Pre-Modern and Modern Chinese from Archaic through Medieval Chinese may be seen as the development of a highly analytic language from a language of considerable synthesis’.5 Against this background, Roberts and Holmberg (2010: 43) conclude 5 Although the proposals about the reconstruction of Old Chinese (1066 bc–200 ad) are still being tested and revised, there is a consensus among Chinese historical linguists that the language had various morphological processes (affixation, reduplication, compounding), which have since been lost. In this respect, Old Chinese was typologically similar to other Sino-Tibetan languages. The morphological processes were mainly derivational rather than inflectional in nature, with the reconstructed *N-prefix for derived detransitivized/passive verbs being a major exception. It looks as though some morphological processes of Old Chinese may have survived in the modern dialects, such as the *k-prefix and the *r-infix (see Baxter and Sagart 1998; Branner 2002; Pulleyblank 2004 a.o.). (Thanks to Edith Aldridge for her help with the Old Chinese facts.)

146

Chris H. Reintges

that ‘[i]t is tempting, then, to try to maintain that “analyticization” is loss of movement, associated to some degree with loss of morphology’. The rationale behind this correlation is to be sought in the verb-attracting properties or movement-blocking properties of employed tense marking. In the agglutinative system, rigidly ordered tense and aspect morphemes must be merged with the lexical verb via head movement. In this way, verb movement supports bound inflectional affixes that would otherwise be left stranded (Cinque 2001; Julien 2002). In the analytic system, by contrast, tense and aspect particles are morphologically and syntactically divorced from the lexical verb stem. Accordingly, the verb–tense relation is furnished via Agree. 8.6.1 Argument crowding and verb movement processes in the agglutinative system 8.6.1.1 Evidence for verb-to-tense raising and v*P internal subject DPs Old Egyptian displays the typical behaviour of a verb raising VSO language. The canonical derivation of VSO order is one in which the finite verb moves to tense, while the subject and the direct object DP remain within the v*P without moving. Examples (19) and (20) illustrate this point for the clause-internal modal particle (j)r- ‘indeed’ and the negation adverb w ‘not’. Another point to observe is that the initial finite verb and the subject are not necessarily adjacent. (19)

Verb > modal particle r-f > subject DP r-f Wnjs pn jj come.pfv pcl-3m.sg Unas.m.sg dem.m.sg ?x j-xm sk spirit.m.sg aug-not.know.ptcp.act.m.sg destruction.m.sg ‘Indeed, this (King) Unas (here) comes as an imperishable spirit’ (Pyramid Texts 153b/W)

(20)

Verb > negation w > subject DP > direct object DP Szp w Hmn zftSt-f accept.pfv not Hemen.m.sg meat.f.sg-poss.3m.sg hrw n(j) hm nb-j day.m.sg link.m.sg majesty.m.sg lord.m.sg-poss.1sg ‘(The god) Hemen will not accept his offering meat on the day of the Majesty of My Lord’ (Mocalla Inscription nr. 8 III.5)

Since the verb precedes negation and lower adverbs, the target position of verb movement must be higher than the position occupied by these elements. The finite verb does, however, not move as high as the C phase head, which represents the highest functional head of the clause. This can be seen from the fact that VSO order is also found in subordinate clauses that are introduced by finite lexical comple-

Macroparametric change

147

mentizers such as ntt ‘that’, as seen in example (21a.). When embedded under a bridge (dZd ‘to say’), this type of subordinate clause permits the topicalization of the embedded subject, as seen in example (21b.). (21) comp VSO order in subordinate clauses a. j(w)-k rx-t(j) [ntt dZd-n Idw r aux-2m.sg learn-stat.2sg comp say-prf Idu.m.sg about s?-f (...) ] son.m.sg-poss.3m.sg ‘You know that Idu said about his son ( . . . )’ (Letters to the Dead, Haskell Oriental Museum Chicago 13945, 1) b. dZd-n-k n R¿ [ ntt Nt jw(-w)-s ] say-prf-2m.sg to Re.m.sg comp Neith.f.sg come-pron-3f.sg ‘You told (the sun-god) Re that (concerning) (Queen) Neith, she would come’ (Pyramid Texts/Nt 40–41) Since the verb does not target the position of the complementizer, but must raise higher than clause-internal negation and focus-related adverbs, the landing site for verb movement can be identified with a lower tense head. A generalized verb-totense raising analysis correctly predicts the availability of additional functional superstructure above Tense0 and below C0, in which a CLLDed DP subject can be embedded (see Reintges 2005a: 62–5 for further discussion). In the aftermath of Pollock’s (1989) Split-infl hypothesis, it has become increasingly difficult to point to clear cases in which a postverbal subject can be shown to reside within the verbal domain. Modern Irish was widely believed to be a VSO language in which the subject and the direct object remain in situ in their initial merge position. McCloskey (1996, 2001) has presented a different picture. Based on variable subject positions in both unaccusative and passive constructions, the postverbal subject DP is shown to raise to a functional projection above the v*P, rather than being located in a v*P-internal position. We are therefore left with Old Egyptian as a clear example of a head-initial VSO language in which there is converging evidence for the v*P-internal licensing of the postverbal subject. Here I present one argument for the subject-in-situ character of VSO order and will refer interested readers to my previous work for additional arguments. As illustrated by example (22), subject DPs are lower than negation and lower than the target position for pronominal object shift. (22)

Verb > negation w > direct object clitic sw > subject DP jw¿(-w) w sw jw¿-f succeed-prs not cl.obj.3m.sg heir.m.sg-poss.3m.sg ‘His heir shall not succeed him’ (Mocalla Inscription nr. 8, III.7)

148

Chris H. Reintges

The object pronoun sw ‘him’ appears to the right of the negation w and as the subject DP jw¿-f ‘his heir’ must occur to the right of the shifted pronoun sw ‘him’, it must be lower in the tree than either of these. In line with Chomsky (2001: 26–8), I assume that pronominal object shift targets the outer edge of the v*P phase. On this analysis, the inner edge Spec,v*P qualifies as the only position in which canonical subjects can be licensed.6 8.6.1.2 Probe–goal relations in the agglutinative system Following Biberauer and Roberts (2010: 265) I assume that finite root clauses have as a universal property that the verb enters into an agree relation with Tense, which thus acts as the probing category. The feature content of Tense must minimally include interpretable tense and finiteness specifications. As part of the extended verbal projection (Grimshaw 1997), it must also be endowed with verbal-categorial features. Yet, it lacks a quintessential property of verbs, namely their ability to introduce arguments into the structure (on this point, see Baker 2003: 23–34). Let us, therefore, say that Tense has uninterpretable verbal features. The probed-for category—the lexical verb stem—has the complementary set of uninterpretable tense and finiteness features as well as interpretable verbal-categorial features. Aspectual features are implicated in the verb–tense relation, since, as will be discussed in the next section, Old Egyptian verb stems can be morphologically marked for aspect by means of simplex and geminated stem forms. The feature composition of the non-projecting Tense probe and the projecting verbal goal is summarized in (23). (23)

Agglutinative tense marker (probe) interpretable tense features [iT] uninterpretable verbal features [iV] interpretable aspect features [iAsp]

Lexical verb stem (goal) uninterpretable tense features [uT] interpretable verbal features [iV] interpretable aspect features [iAsp]

According to Biberauer and Roberts (2010: 267–8, 300), verbs in languages with rich tense inflection are actually verb–tense compounds, which are formed in the numeration as part of the process of presyntactic word formation. These morphologically complex words must first be merged with the V-complement to form a VP and satisfy its argument-structural properties, and must subsequently be merged with the T-complement to form a TP. This operation involves a form of partial reprojection in the sense that the tense features of the compound determine the formation of the TP projection. The implementation of Biberauer and Roberts’ (2010) essentially lexicalist view is, however, less straightforward for Old Egyptian, in which agglutinative tense markers 6

The qualification canonical subjects is necessary, since non-canonical quantified and focused subject DPs are licensed in the specifier of Tense, which is not projected in the derivation of VSO order in the normal course of events. See Reintges (2005a: 69–72, 2009: 54–7) for a more detailed analysis of focusdriven subject raising.

Macroparametric change

149

enter the syntax as independent terminal elements and must be merged with the verbal stem via head movement, in compliance with Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle. Evidence for the morphological category of agglutinative tense markers comes from the language’s elaborate system of participle formation. Old Egyptian participles are inflected nominally for number and gender and verbally for tense/aspect/mood and grammatical voice. Crucially, the very same tense formation that surfaces on finite verb forms also appears on tense-inflected participles (Reintges 2005b). Consider in this regard the perfect particle rdZj-w-n ‘having given’ in (24a.) and the imperfective active particle dZdZj-w ‘giving’ in (24b.). In the imperfective participle dZdZj-w, the plural masculine declension -w is attached to the reduplicated stem dZdZj. This contrasts with the perfect participle rdZj-w-n, where the tense inflection is attached to the outer layer of the nominally inflected participle. (24) Old Egyptian tense/aspect-inflected participles a. jr mw jpn rnp-w [ rdZj-w-n(-j) n-k ] about water.mp dem.m.sg fresh-m.pl give-ptcp.act.m.pl-prf-1sg to-2m.sg ‘About these fresh waters which I gave to you’ (Pyramid Texts 1002c/M) b. j-xm-w sk (...) [ dZdZj-w aug-not.know-ptcp.act.m.sg destruction.m.sg give.imprf-ptcp.act.m.pl h? nw n xntj-w k?-w jm(-y)-w descend.sbj dem.m.pl to foremost-m.pl provision-m.pl in-nominal-m.pl pt] heaven.f.sg ‘The imperishable stars ( . . . ), which cause (lit. give) this to descend to the Foremost of the Provisions (i.e. food deities) in heaven’ (Pyramid Texts 1220:b–d/P) Since the agglutinative tense marker has clitic-like properties, it must be directly mapped onto a functional head in the syntax. At a later derivational stage, head movement provides an appropriate verbal host for enclisis. Following Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2005), structural nominative and accusative case can be conceptualized as the NP analogue of tense in the verbal domain. More specifically, nominative case represents an uninterpretable tense feature on the subject DP. Given that the postverbal subject DP is located in the inner edge of v*P, we can safely assume with Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005: 818–43) that agree without subsequent move qualifies as a sufficient structural relation for nominative case assignment, as represented in diagram (25).

Chris H. Reintges

150 (25)

Probe–goal relations in the derivation of Old Egyptian VSO order

TP Tense Verb [uT, iV]

v*P

Tense [iT, uV]

obj-cl

v*P Subject [uT] ↑

v*P v Verb

VP

nominative case assignment via agree V

...

Object

verb-to-tense movement The Old Egyptian facts just outlined pose a potential challenge for Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s (2001, 2007) Subject-in-Situ Generalization, according to which the subject and the direct object cannot concurrently check or value their case features and be spelled out in their initial merge position: when the verb and tense form a complex head through movement, they cannot both be endowed with an active case feature. For this reason, no more than one argument can remain in situ within the v*P phase. The prohibition against argument crowding can be circumvented though, when the finite verb bears rich agreement inflection (see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2001: 216, 224–6, 2007: 47, 49 for the details of the argument). But even with this modification, there is no straightforward way in which Old Egyptian would fit the parameters of the Subject-in-Situ Generalization, since there is no agreement inflection to begin with. This puzzle can be solved by a more finegrained analysis of the layered v*P. 8.6.1.3 The split v*P Verbal aspect in Old Egyptian has a markedly derivational character. The perfective–imperfective opposition is encoded by pairs of simple and geminated stem forms: hz-j (perfective/neutral) ‘to praise’ versus hzz (imperfective) ‘to be praising’. Imperfective stems can only be derived from weak verbs, so called because members of this class display a stem-final glide -j. In the vast majority of case, the base verb is either transitive (e.g.  hzz ‘to be praising’) or unergative (e.g. h?? ‘to be descending’), with the unaccusative copular verb wnn ‘to be’ being the marked exception.

Macroparametric change

151

(26) The distribution of imperfective stems across different lexical classes of verbs a. wnn ¿? hzz wj hm-f be.imprf great.ptcp.m.sg praise.imprf cl.obj.1sg majesty.m.sg-poss.3m.sg ‘It was enormous (how) His Majesty praised me’ (Urkunden I 221, 4) b. h??-sn r t? m hf?w-w descend.imprf-3pl to earth.m.sg as serpent-m.pl ‘They (the gods) are descending to earth as male serpents’ (Coffin Texts III 24a/B2Bo) Since imperfective stem formation leaves the argument structure of the base verb intact, Bendjaballah and Reintges (2009: 145–6) propose that the layered structure of the Old Egyptian v*P contains an aspectual head, which is interspersed between the argument-introducing verbal heads v* and V. The formation of perfective/neutral versus imperfective stems in the syntax is accomplished by V-to-Asp-to-v* raising. I furthermore assume, still following Pesetsky and Torrego (2005: 501–5), that accusative case represents an uninterpretable aspectual feature on the direct object. It is matched with the corresponding interpretable feature on the intermediary aspect head. Due to the presence of internal functional superstructure, direct object arguments are licensed in situ in the specifier of the VP projection. Hence, the puzzle of argument crowing in Old Egyptian VSO clauses disappears. The tree diagram in (27) illustrates. (27)

The v*P-internal aspect projection

v*P Subject [uT]

v*P v*

AspectP

Aspect V [uAsp, iV]

VP

Aspect Direct Object [iAsp, uV] [uAsp] V

accusative case assignment via agree

V V

VP t√ROOT Classifier suffix ‐j

√ROOT

A salient but not very well understood property of imperfectives is that they must move all the way up to C0. As would be expected under a verb second analysis (den Besten 1983), there are no attested examples of embedded imperfective verbs

152

Chris H. Reintges

that co-occur with a finite embedding complementizer. Example (28) features an embedded imperfective passive jrr-t(j) ‘is being made’, which marks the beginning of the subordinate clause. verb second effects of imperfectives jm-snj m stp-z? r(-y)-t hrw] m?-t(j) [CP jrr-t(j) see.pfv-pass2 do.imprf-pass2 at-3du in place under-nominal-f.sg day.m.sg ‘It was seen that the two (doors) were worked on in the palace daily’ (Urkunden I 39, 1) R

(28)

The exact nature of the verb second effects, that we see with imperfectives and passives, needs to be clarified in future research (but cf. Reintges 1997: 304–38, 2005a: 76–80 for a tentative analysis). It looks, though, as if the traditional idea that imperfectivity is related to sentence mood and information structure, and hence to the C phase head, is not entirely off track. 8.6.2 Argument voiding and remnant verb movement in the analytic system 8.6.2.1 The phasal imbalance between v*P and TP In presenting a predicateargument configuration, the layered v*P may universally count as the first-phase domain on the meaning side, without necessarily being a phase on the sound side. I rely on Marušič’s (2009) proposal that such asymmetries in phasal composition arise from non-simultaneous spellout. The v*P in Coptic Egyptian is a showcase for a defective lexical phase. Supporting evidence for the non-phasal status of the v* head comes from the process of argument voiding (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2001, 2007). In example (29), the lexical verb stem t@nneu ‘to send’, the subject DP p@-nu:te ‘God’, and the direct object DP pe-f-S«:re ‘his son’ all linearly precede the clause-internal negation adverb an ‘not’. Provided that negation heads its own functional projection, the sequence subject DP > verb > direct object DP > negation indicates that the v*P domain has been vacated by its main constituents. Translated into terms of phase theory, this means that the phase head, the edge and material inside the complement domain have all bypassed the PIC. (29)

relative particle @nt > perfect particle a > subject DP > verb > direct object DP > negation an gar t@nneu pe-f-Se:re @nt a p@-nu:te rel prf def.m.sg-god.m.sg pcl send.nom def.m.sg.3m.sg.poss-child.m.sg an e-p@-kosmos tSe e-f-e krine not to-def.m.sg-world.m.sg comp rel-3m.sg-fut.deon judge.abs @m-p@-kosmos prep-def.m.sg-world.m.sg ‘God has not sent his son to the world to judge the world’ (John 3, 17)

Macroparametric change

153

As a consequence of verb raising and phrasal movement, the Coptic v*P is left behind as an essentially vacuous structure. What is the fate of this structure? In a recent paper, Kiss (2008: 460–3) argues convincingly that when the phase head moves into the head position of the next higher functional projection, both the silent copies of the moved head and their projections are pruned during the spellout procedure. Subsequently, the hierarchical structure of the v*P collapses in a process referred to as domain flattening. Here I propose to connect the defective phasehood of the Coptic v*P to a morphosyntactic property. Coptic verb stems are defective verbal categories, which are no longer compatible with the exponents of tense, aspect, mood, and finiteness. Rather, all these inflectional categories are encoded by means of externalized particles in the extended verbal projection. Because of their incomplete featural specification, lexical verb stems in the analytic system are not only less finite but also, to some degree, less verbal than their counterparts in the agglutinative system. Massam (2005: 236–8, 2010: 286–7) argues on similar grounds that Niuean predicates do not house inflectional features since they are not morphosyntactically verbs. For this reason, Niuean predicates cannot enter into an agree relation with higher functional elements. As discussed in section 8.5, the Coptic situation is clearly different insofar as tense/aspect particles enter into an agree relation with the main verb. The defective phasehood of the v*P is compensated for by the phasehood of the left-peripheral tense projection. To move towards an understanding of the phasal characteristics of root tense, one might envisage two different types of analysis. One analytical possibility would be to say that analytic tense particles are actually tensed complementizers. Massam (2000: 101, 2010: 292) and Biberauer and Roberts (2010: 296) propose an analysis along these lines for Niuean tense particles, which are treated as portmanteau complementizer–tense elements. This analysis would seem to predict that these particles are in complementary distribution with embedding complementizers as there is only a single C0 node available. This prediction is borne out by the Niuean evidence as preverbal particles in this language must be dropped when a lexical complementizer is present (Massam 2010: 291–4). The situation is, however, different with Coptic tense/aspect particles, which freely occur with subordinating complementizers and relative particles of various kinds (see above, section 8.3). Accordingly, tense/aspect particles do not lend themselves for an analysis as complementizer–tense elements. On such grounds, it seems worthwhile to explore the alternative possibility of correlating the phase effects of Tense to its left-peripheral position. Chomsky (2008: 143) suggests that the CP covers the entire left periphery of the clause, involving ‘feature spread from fewer functional heads (maybe only one)’. This can be implemented into a formal account of calculating CP phasehood on the basis of hierarchical relations. Since there are no phase boundaries in left periphery of the clause, the

154

Chris H. Reintges

TP only serves as the first-phase domain when it closes off the syntactic derivation. If additional functional superstructure is projected on top of it, the highest functional particle will furnish the relevant phase-inducing head. The cascaded mono-phasal syntax of Coptic particles is schematically represented in the following diagram (tam and rel stand for ‘tense/aspect/mood’ and ‘relative’ particle, respectively.) (30)

The mono-phasal syntax of Coptic partcles

CP → Particle closes off the derivation in non-root contexts ei C0 … FocusP → Particle closes off the derivation in focus contexts REL particle ei … Focus0 TAM or REL particle TP → Particle closes off the derivation in root contexts ei Tense0 … TAM particle

8.6.2.2 Probe–goal relations in the analytic system When a probe–goal analysis is applied to the case at hand, the probe—the tense/aspect particle representing the language’s rich tense inflection—has interpretable tense and finiteness features. As a verb-related category without an argument structure, it also has uninterpretable verbal-categorial features. The probed-for category—the lexical verb stem—has the complementary set of uninterpretable tense and finiteness features as well as interpretable verbal-categorial features. Selectional restrictions of aspectually sensitive tense particles, with respect to lexical verb stems, furthermore suggest that the particle probe and the verbal goal both have interpretable aspectual features (see Reintges 2011 for further discussion and explication). (31)

analytic tam particle (probe) interpretable tense features [iT] uninterpretable verbal features [uV] interpretable aspect features [iAsp]

grade-inflected verb stem (goal) uninterpretable tense features [uT] interpretable verbal features [iV] interpretable aspect features [iAsp]

The process of argument voiding generally shows that the Coptic v*P no longer serves as a licensing domain for the verb’s main arguments. Rather, the subject and the direct object must move to the specifier positions of designated modal and aspectual projections for case-related purposes. In view of the fact that Coptic is an agreementless language, one may plausibly assume that w-features do not play any role in case-licensing processes. While subject raising to the specifier of MoodP is driven by the need for nominative case assignment, things may be slightly different for direct object shift. In line with Kratzer’s (2004: 397–400) proposal, I assume that the phrasal extraction of the direct object DP is brought about by the [ þ telic] specification of the Aspect

Macroparametric change

155

head. When the Aspect head has a negative value for telicity, it does not project a specifier position. Because of this, the direct object is frozen in place within the vacated v*P domain. To neutralize its uninterpretable aspect feature, a semantically vacuous case preposition must be introduced into the structure. A particularly illustrative case is example (32). Here the subject DP pei-hOß ‘this thing’ and the verb areske ‘to please’ precede the negation adverb an, while the prepositional object DP @m-p@-rO:me ‘the man’ stays in the lower v*P region and does not move. (32)

Conditional complementizer > subject DP > verb > negation an > prepositional object DP eStSe pei-hOß kje areske an @m-p@-rO:me if dem.m.sg-thing.m.sg pcl please.abs not prep-def.m.sg-man.m.sg @nSu:So (...) link-boast.abs ‘If this thing does not please the man who prides himself ( . . . )’ (Shenoute, Amélineau I, 1, 13, 7)

The network of probe–goal relations gives rise to the appearance of rightward licensing of the subject DP in the specifier position of MoodP by the presubject tense particle. The diagram in (33) illustrates. (33)

Phasal and non-phasal domains in analytic clause structure Non-defective TP phase (first-phase domain)

TP

Tense g

MoodP

Split- INFL domain (case licensing)

Particle [uV, iAsp, iT] Subject ... Verb ... AspectP [uT] [iV, iAsp, uT] Object ... Verb ... v∗P Defective v∗P phase (argument voiding) Subject ... Verb ... Object

In the analytic system, free-standing tense/aspect particles entertain an abstract feature valuation relationship with the lexical verb stem, which is less finite and less verbal than their tense and aspect inflected counterparts in the agglutinative system. Although the analytic system severely restricts the movement space of verbs, verb movement as a syntactic operation need not be entirely dispensed with as lower inflectional heads should in principle still be available as movement targets. A case in point is residual verb movement in Coptic, which preempts subject raising and direct object shift. But, and this is a crucial point, residual verb movement is not reprojective and hence does not extend the domain of the v*P phase.

156

Chris H. Reintges

8.7 Concluding remarks In the agglutinative system, the affixal tense/aspect morphology must incorporate into the lexical verb stem to avoid a stray-affix filter violation. Not only does verb-totense raising remove the uninterpretable features on the probing Tense head and the probed-for verb, verb movement is also a syntactic prerequisite for postsyntactic merger to apply. On the whole, the Old Egyptian v*P constitutes a strong phase, in which the subject and the direct object DPs are licensed in situ. The analytic morphological system differs considerably from the agglutinative system in terms of the basic syntactic operations. The Tense node is located in an uplifted syntactic position at the borderline between the inflectional domain and the left periphery of the clause. This gives rise to the typologically unusual T/Aux–S–V–O surface order. As discrete words, tense/aspect particles do not require a verbal host. Since verb-totense raising is ruled out, the path for verb raising is narrowed down to the inflectional domain proper. The Coptic v*P constitutes a weak phase, which is voided by the phasal head (v*), the edge (the subject) and material inside its complement domain (the direct object). Table 8.1 summarizes the complexes of morphological and syntactic properties that differentiate the agglutinative and analytic system.

TABLE 8.1. Main parametric differences between the agglutinative and analytic system Agglutinative system

Analytical system

Morphological category of tense

bound affixes

free-standing particles (but liaison with adjacent DP)

Basic word order

VSO

T/Aux–S–V–O

Scope of verb movement

verb-to-tense raising, verb-to-aspect-to-mood raising verb-to-C raising (V2 effects)

Triggers for verb movement

verb movement supports affixal material

Argument licensing

argument voiding (v*P-external argument crowding (v*Plicensing of the subject and the internal licensing of the subject and the direct object) direct object)

Activation of the EPP

inactive status of the EPP on tense (unless it is endowed with a focus feature)

verb movement extends the domain for the phrasal extraction of the subject and direct object

active status of the EPP on clause-internal mood and aspect heads, but crucially not on the left-peripheral tense head

Macroparametric change

157

The clustering of properties points in the direction of macroparametric variation and change.7 Huang (2008) proposes that the different macroparameters may be generalized to a single metaparameter of analyticity versus synthesis. To be sure, such an analytic–synthetic metaparameter would be in tension with the lexical parametrization hypothesis, which reduces interlanguage variation to the formal features of functional categories. But then we might want to entertain Baker’s (2008) provocative hypothesis that the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture is too strong, and derive synchronic and diachronic variation in grammar from the complex interaction between large- and small-scale parameters.

7 An anonymous reviewer for OUP wonders whether the case for macroparametric change can be made stronger by presenting evidence from other agglutinative/analytical systems confirming the properties in Table 8.1 of the main text. Cyrino and Reintges (2011) present a macroparametric comparison of the typological shift from a synthetic to an analytic verbal tense system in Brazilian Portuguese, where the change is still going on, and Coptic Egyptian, where it has been completed. The results obtained in this research support the conclusions of this chapter but cannot be presented here for reasons of space.

9 A diachronic shift in the expression of person1 JUDY B. BERNSTEIN AND RAFFAELLA ZANUTTINI

9.1 Introduction The power of the notion of parameter lies in capturing a number of observable differences among languages by appealing to a single, more abstract difference in their grammar. For example, Holmberg and Platzack in their rich body of work (e.g. Platzack and Holmberg 1989, Holmberg and Platzack 1995, Holmberg and Platzack 2005) have proposed that the presence or absence of agreement in Scandinavian languages is responsible for a number of differences that characterize the Insular Scandinavian languages and distinguish them from the closely related Mainland Scandinavian languages. To provide a relevant example, Icelandic, a language with agreement, displays transitive expletive constructions, a range of possible positions for subjects, and V-to-T raising in embedded clauses. In contrast, Swedish, which lacks agreement, displays no transitive expletive constructions, a more restricted distribution for subjects, and no V-to-T raising in embedded clauses. Sometimes we find languages that exhibit only a subset of the cluster of properties that have been said to stem from a certain parameter setting. One such case is that of Appalachian English, a group of varieties spoken in areas of the southeastern United States. Appalachian English exhibits transitive expletives, a property not attested in present-day standard English:2,3 1 This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants BCS 0617210 (Bernstein) and BCS 0617133 (Zanuttini). For valuable feedback, we thank audiences at: Levels of Analysis in the History of Indo-European Languages (University of Trieste, Italy, 2008), Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting (San Francisco, USA, 2009), Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS) XI (UNICAMP, Brazil, 2009). We are grateful to our research assistant Goldie Ann Dooley for her help and enthusiasm. 2 We note the source from which examples are taken with the following abbreviations: M&H stands for Montgomery and Hall (2004), DOH stands for Dante Oral History Project (Dante, Virginia), Murray stands for Murray (1873), H&P stands for Holmberg and Platzack (1995), H&P 2005 stands for Holmberg and Platzack (2005), B&J stands for Bobaljik and Jonas (1996), J stands for Jonas (1996), and A&F stands for Alexiadou and Fanselow (2002). The Appalachian English examples not followed by any of these designations come from our own fieldwork in southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. 3 The Appalachian English expletive pronoun can be there or they (see Montgomery 2006a, Tortora 2006).

A diachronic shift in the expression of person (1)

159

a. They can’t many people say that. (Appalachian English; DOH) b. He’s stubborn and wild . . . There can’t nobody ride him. (M&H: 111) c. . . . there don’t never nobody bother his still. (M&H: 570)

It also displays overt subjects in a wider range of positions than standard English: (2)

a. We don’t any of us need anything. (Appalachian English; M&H: lxiv) b. They were both of them in the first religious organization . . . (M&H: lxiv) c. They can every one sing. (M&H: lxiv)

But it doesn’t exhibit all the properties that characterize Insular Scandinavian languages as opposed to the Mainland ones; for example, it doesn’t exhibit raising of the verb from V to T. An analysis of the distribution of verbal -s in this language had led us, in previous work (Zanuttini and Bernstein 2009, Bernstein 2008b), to claim that Appalachian English differs from standard English in a way that is similar to the way in which Insular Scandinavian languages can be seen to differ from their Mainland counterparts: by exhibiting person marking on the finite verb. This gives rise to two questions that will be addressed in this chapter: A. Can a diachronic perspective provide support for the proposal that Appalachian English differs from present-day standard English in the way just mentioned, that is, by having agreement (more specifically, person marking)? B. How do parameters change over time, so that the daughter language no longer displays the full set of properties of the ancestor language? In answer to the first question, we will show that a diachronic perspective can indeed provide independent support for the proposal that Appalachian English is a language that marks agreement, and in particular person, on the verb. We will do so by analyzing a variety shown to be its ancestor by Montgomery (1989, 1997): Older Scots. Older Scots, like present-day Appalachian English, exhibited transitive expletives:4,5 (3)

4

a. . . . thare sal na dene of gilde be chosin for this yere. (Stuart 1474) . . . there shall no dean of guild be chosen for this year

The Older Scots expletive pronoun can be thare or thay (Montgomery 2006a); Older Scots examples in (3) come from Dictionary of the Scots Language, http://www.dsl.ac.uk.dsl/. 5 A reviewer asks whether Older Scots TECs tend to involve negative subjects (see (3a.,b.)), as observed and analyzed for Late Middle English in Ingham (2000). Although the pattern for Older Scots is unclear (we have observed affirmative and negative cases), the tendency of negative subjects is certainly apparent for Appalachian English. In current work on Appalachian English TECs, we consider an analysis along the lines of Ingham (2000), one that ties an additional subject position to the presence of negation.

160

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini b. Thay there thir their c. Thare there

will na man of jugement or learning mak difference betuix will no man of judgement or learning make difference between wordis. (Kennedy 1561) words will will

ane one

vengeance vengeance

fall fall

ws us

but but

remede. remedy

(Hay 1456)

Interesting, and relevant to our study of the relationship between Older Scots and Appalachian English, is the fact that both varieties display subject-verb agreement characteristic of Northern Subject Rule varieties.6 In particular, Appalachian English (4) and Older Scots (5) display verbal -s with plural lexical subjects (but generally not with pronominal subjects, descriptively labelled the ‘type-of-subject constraint’): (4)

a. All preachers likes fried chicken. (Appalachian English; DOH) b. Them gals is purty, but they’re crazy as Junebugs. (M&H: 46)

(5)

a. the burds cums an’ pœcks them (Older Scots; Murray: 212) the birds comes and pecks them b. the men syts (Murray: 212) the men sits

We will take the parallelism in verbal agreement illustrated in (4) and (5) to show that the two varieties share the same syntax in this domain: they both mark person in their syntactic representation of the inflectional system. We take person marking to be an abstract syntactic property that doesn’t necessarily correspond to a full set of morphological distinctions, following the line of reasoning presented in Bobaljik and Jonas (1996), Bobaljik (1995), Thráinsson (1996), Bobaljik and Thráinsson (1998), and Bobaljik (2002b). In answer to the second question, our work will show that the effects of parameter change are gradual. A diachronic perspective allows us to observe these effects in varieties that represent intermediate stages of the change. Older Scots, we will show, had a full system of person marking. Appalachian English, its descendant, retains only the vestiges of such a system, and it therefore represents an intermediate stage of the parameter change. Over time, the loss of person from the verbal domain (which correlates with the loss of other syntactic properties associated with person marking) coincides with the shift of person marking to the subject DP, in the form of personal pronouns.

6 The general pattern is found in northern UK varieties, such as Buckie English (Adger and Smith 2010), Tyneside English (Beal 1993), Belfast English (Henry 1995), Northern Irish English (McCafferty 2003), Southern Irish English (McCafferty 2004), and Ulster-Scots (Montgomery 2006b, Robinson 1997). See Pietsch (2005a,b) for general discussion.

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

161

The chapter is organized as follows. In section 9.2, we examine verbal agreement in Older Scots and propose that person is always expressed on the verb, either via a verbal morpheme or a cliticized personal pronoun. We take this property to be encoded in the syntax as a feature person expressed on a functional head independent of T. In section 9.3, we briefly compare the Older Scots patterns to those found in its descendant, Appalachian English, taking the incomplete system found in the contemporary variety to reflect a loss of person marking in the verbal domain. In section 9.4, we review our proposals within the context of the notion of parameter and language change. We view Older Scots, contemporary standard English, and Appalachian English as displaying positive, negative, and intermediate settings of a person parameter. We also suggest that person marking shifts from being a property of the verbal system to one of the nominal system.

9.2 Person marking and its effects in Older Scots Montgomery (1989, 1997) has traced the history of Appalachian English subject-verb agreement to Ulster and then further back to Lowland Scotland.7 In this chapter, we focus on subject-verb agreement of Older Scots of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, before which documentation is scarce. The agreement pattern described for Older Scots and illustrated in (5), so-called ‘plural verbal -s’ (Montgomery 1989: 249; 1997: 129; McCafferty 2003: 109), also characterized Northumbrian English of the same period, and has been hypothesized to be the source of plural verbal -s in Middle English of the Midlands (Montgomery 1997: 126).8,9 9.2.1 Verbal agreement in Older Scots A striking property of present tense subject-verb agreement in Older Scots (and other northern UK varieties), distinguishing it from the southern English varieties, is that verbal -s appeared not only with singular subjects, but also with plural subjects (hence the label, employed by some, ‘plural verbal -s’). But it also appeared with singular subjects other than third person ones, so with I and you. Although the particular person and number features of the subject did not seem to play a role in the verbal form (-s appears across the paradigm), -s did not appear when the subject pronouns I (aa), we (wey), you (yee), and they (thay) are adjacent to the verb. 7

Montgomery (1989, 1997) details two migrations, the first from the Scottish lowlands to Ulster, in the early 1600s, and the second from Ulster to America, beginning in the late 1600s. All told, this migration brought approximately 250,000 Scotch-Irish immigrants to America by 1776, many of them settling in the area now known as Appalachia (Montgomery 1997: 125, citing Dickson 1966). 8 McCafferty (2003: 108) suggests that a Northern English influence on vernaculars in the UK and US must be considered alongside the Ulster-Scots influence. 9 We will not use the label ‘plural verbal -s’ for examples like (4) and (5). Unlike Montgomery, we don’t view verbal -s as sometimes a singular marker and sometimes a plural marker, but rather as encoding a single feature, which we take to be person. For that reason we will use the descriptive label ‘verbal -s’ for all cases.

162

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

Murray (1873: 211–2) provides the following two-part description of the paradigm for the relevant time period, which applies to weak as well as strong verbs: (6)

a. For any lexical subject or for a pronominal subject not adjacent to the verb, verbal -s appeared in all persons: 1st 2nd 3rd

singular leykes/w’reytes leykes/w’reytes leykes/w’reytes ‘like(s)’, ‘write(s)’

plural leykes/w’reytes leykes/w’reytes leykes/w’reytes ‘like’, ‘write’

b. With a pronominal subject adjacent to the verb, verbal -s is absent, except with second and third singular subjects: 1st 2nd 3rd

singular aa leyke/w’reyte thuw leykes/w’reytes hey, scho, (h)it leykes/w’reytes ‘like(s)’, ‘write(s)’

plural wey leyke/w’reyte yee leyke/w’reyte thay leyke/w’reyte ‘like’, ‘write’

Example (7) illustrates Older Scots verbal -s with plural lexical subjects and (8) illustrates verbal -s with non-adjacent plural pronouns: (7) a. sum thynks hey was reycht, but uthers menteins the contrar some thinks he was right, but others maintains the contrary (Older Scots; Murray: 212) b. the burds cums an’ pœcks them (Murray: 212) the birds comes and pecks them c. fuok ăt cums unbudden, syts unsær’d (Murray: 212) folk that comes uninvited remains unanswered (8)

a. yuw eanes seys quhat thir meins (Murray: 212) you ones says what this means b. huz tweae quheyeles gangs theare (Murray: 212) us two sometimes goes there c. yuw at thynks ye can dui aa-thyng (Murray: 212) you that thinks you can do anything

Additional Older Scots examples from Montgomery (1994: 83, 89) illustrate verbal -s with non-adjacent we in (9a.), separated from the verb by the adverb lely (‘lawfully’), and non-adjacent thei (‘they’) in (9b.), separated from the verb by a relative clause:10 10 Example (9a.) is from The Buke of Knychthede, 24 (mid-fifteenth century prose). Example (9b.) is from The Douglas Book, 29 (Old Scots Legal Document, 1381). Both are cited in Montgomery (1994).

A diachronic shift in the expression of person (9)

163

a. That we lely heichtis and grantis (Older Scots; Montgomery 1994) that we lawfully raises in value and grants b. gif thei that suld governe if they that should govern misgovernys it, and dois the misgoverns it, and does the

the said ordre, and manetene it the said order and maintain it, contraire contrary

As for the Older Scots pattern with adjacent personal pronouns, as described in (6b.), examples of the bare verbal form are provided in (10): (10)

a. aa I

cum come

fyrst first

(Older Scots; Murray: 212)

b. wey gàng theare (Murray: 212) we go there c. ye say quhat thay mein (Murray: 212) you say what they mean Montgomery (1994: 83) provides an Older Scots example illustrating both the non -s form (have) adjacent to the subject (I) as well as the -s form (hes) with the same nonadjacent subject:11 (11)

I have spokyn with my lord Maxwell and hes deleverit. I have spoken with my lord Maxwell and has decided (Older Scots; Montgomery 1994)

So the generalization for Older Scots verbal agreement that emerges from Murray’s descriptions distinguishes adjacent pronominal subjects from all others. In other words, verbal -s appears with all subjects other than adjacent personal pronouns (with the exception of hey/scho/hit and thuw).12 Montgomery’s (1994: 88–9) corpus analysis of seven texts from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries confirms Murray’s descriptions of the Older Scots verbal paradigms. In Table 9.1, we observe that overall, verbal -s appears 93% of the time TABLE 9.1. Rate of -s marking for 3rd-person plural subject types (N¼527)

% -s

Conjoined Ns

Relative pronouns

Common Ns

Total nouns

92%

95%

91%

93%

(from Montgomery 1994: 88) 11

Example (11) is from The Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 15; 1543–1546, cited in Montgomery (1994). 12 Roberts (1993: 265) describes these patterns in a discussion of Northern English and Older Scots of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries.

164

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

TABLE 9.2. Rate of -s marking with non-adjacent personal pronoun subjects (N¼170)

% -s

they

I

we

ye

Total

90%

94%

94%

100%

94%

(from Montgomery 1994: 89)

with third person plural subjects. Similarly, Table 9.2 illustrates the rate of verbal -s with non-adjacent personal pronominal subjects (they, I, we, you), a strikingly parallel 94%. Consistent with Montgomery’s findings on verbal -s with plural lexical subjects summarized in Table 9.1, Meurman-Solin’s (1992: 617) examination of the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots reveals ‘that a suffixless verb is extremely rare after plural noun subjects in the corpus . . . or date from the last decennia of the seventeenth century’. Although Montgomery (1994: 88) does not provide a table for the rate of zeromarked forms with adjacent personal pronouns in Older Scots (the number of contexts is small), he states that the pattern appeared over 90% of the time in all but one document source (where it appeared 82% of the time). The hypothesis we put forth about verbal -s in Older Scots, which incorporates the (non)-adjacency facts, is the following: (12)

In Older Scots, verbal -s is a generalized person marker, which occurs whenever a person-bearing form (pronoun) is not cliticized to T.

This hypothesis captures the idea that, in Older Scots, person must always be expressed in T, either through verbal -s or through a cliticized personal pronoun. We have translated the descriptive relevance of subject type (traditionally labelled ‘type of subject constraint’) and adjacency to the verb (labelled ‘proximity of the subject constraint’) into a syntactic distinction between two different types of subjects: lexical subjects, which we take to be full DPs, and pronominal subjects, which we take to be pronominal clitics, at least some of the time. We represent Older Scots lexical subjects and non-adjacent pronominal subjects as follows: (13)

TP DP the burds yuw eanes

T⬘ T cumsi seysi

vP ti

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

165

With these types of subjects, verbal -s is expressed because T does not otherwise have a person feature. We represent the adjacent (cliticized, in our analysis) pronominal subjects in Older Scots as follows: (14)

TP T⬘ T thay cumi ye sayi

vP ti

In other words, verbal -s is not expressed in these examples because person is expressed via a person-bearing pronoun (thay, ye) in T. The intuition expressed in (14) is the same one found in Börjars and Chapman (1998: 75–6) for the contemporary non-standard varieties of UK English they examine (spoken in Tyneside, parts of northeast Yorkshire and west Yorkshire). Can we consider an alternative proposal to the one defended here, namely that verbal -s is a person marker in Older Scots? For example, could verbal -s be interpreted as a ‘tense marker’ (Börjars and Chapman 1998: 75) or a ‘default finiteness marker’ (Roberts 1993, personal communication)? This might appear to be consistent with the facts, since verbal -s appears across persons in present indicative. However, an -s-as-tense or -finiteness approach would fail to distinguish the pattern in (6a.) from that in (6b.): if verbal -s is a tense or finiteness marker, why does it fail to appear with adjacent personal pronouns? Our treatment of verbal -s as a (generalized) person marker is consistent with the paradigm in (6a.) (i.e. its appearance across first, second, third person forms); moreover, it offers an explanation for why -s does not appear with adjacent personal pronouns in (6b.): the cliticized pronouns express person (in T). Having established that the general pattern with adjacent pronouns is zero verbmarking, we now consider the two exceptions, hey/scho/(h)it (‘he/she/it’) and thuw (‘thou’). Why would verbal -s appear with these subjects? Following Bernstein (2008a,b,c), we suppose that hey/scho/(h)it do not carry person features, but instead are endowed only with gender, a property of nouns (Ritter 1993).13,14 Some support 13 Similarly, Romance subject pronouns (i) and object clitics (ii) typically display gender only in third person forms, as illustrated by Italian:

b. io (1), tu (2-fam.), noi (1-pl.), voi (2-pl.) (i) a. lui (m.sg.), lei (f.sg.) (ii) a. lo (m.sg.), la (f.sg.), li (m.pl.), le (f.pl) b. me/mi (1), te/ti (2-fam.), ce/ci (1-pl.), ve/vi (2-pl.) 14 Kratzer (2009: 219, 221) also distinguishes the person features of 1st/2nd pronouns, features referring to speaker and hearer, from the gender features of 3rd person pronouns.

166

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

for this idea comes from examples like those in (15), which illustrate how in contemporary varieties of English h- pronouns may modify common nouns (examples from Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002: 46): (15)

a. she-society b. she-goat c. he-man

For us, the relevance of these complex nouns is that the h- pronoun contributes gender, not person, to the interpretation: a she-society is one made up of women; a she-goat is a female goat; a he-man is a macho man.15 In contrast, a we-society, which contains the person-bearing pronoun we, indicates a society that includes the speaker. Consistent with this interpretation of we-society, our intuition is that a they-society would be one that excludes the speaker. These interpretations support our contention that the h- pronouns, unlike the other personal pronouns, do not contain a person feature nor do they refer. And, since T in Older Scots always displays person, the absence of a person-bearing form in T necessitates the spelling out of verbal -s. This view about absence of person with h- pronouns, accounting for the expression of verbal -s, should also apply to second singular thuw (‘thou’). This form must also somehow fail to contribute person information, accounting for the required co-occurring verbal -s. Although we have no real explanation for why this would be, we note that thuw is special in two respects: a) it is the only personal pronoun to eventually drop out of the language; b) it is the only non-third person form to display th- (cf. they, them, their, etc.; see Bernstein 2008a). In this section, we have proposed that, in Older Scots, personal pronouns could be clitic forms (expressed with the verb in T) or full-fledged DP pronominal subjects. The form of the subject determined whether or not verbal -s appeared. According to Montgomery (1994: 94), there is no evidence as yet that the so-called adjacency effects of Older Scots ever characterized Appalachian English.16 In other words, verbal agreement is identical with adjacent and non-adjacent person-bearing subject pronouns (zero-marked forms in both cases). From our perspective, this means that personal pronouns are no longer clitics in Appalachian English; rather, they are always DP pronominal subjects. 15 Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002) also take person to be absent from these forms, and from N in general. For them, the h- forms correspond to their fP, intermediate between DP and NP. 16 Interestingly, an Appalachian English speaker in Mountain City, Tennessee, produced examples suggesting that she may have so-called adjacency effects:

(i) a. . . . and they come out to their home out here and stays all night b. They’ve just jumped right in and fits right in. c. . . . where you have to buy all your fertilizer and has to hire your plowing done . . . Despite the existence of these examples produced by one speaker, we follow Montgomery (1994: 94) in taking Appalachian English to lack adjacency effects.

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

167

9.2.2 Other syntactic properties of Older Scots As pointed out in Platzack and Holmberg (1989: 70), also discussed in Kayne (1989a: 58–9), in the Scandinavian languages there is a strong correlation between the presence of person agreement and verb-raising. In later work (e.g. Holmberg and Platzack 1995, Holmberg and Platzack 2005) they note a number of systematic differences between Insular Scandinavian languages (like Icelandic), which express agreement on the verb, and the Mainland Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian), which do not. Icelandic displays, among other properties, verb-raising (16), verb second (17), transitive expletives (18), and object shift (19) (with full DPs and weak pronouns): Verb-raising: (16)

a. . . . ... ‘...

að Jón las aldrei bókina. (Icelandic; H&P: 78) that John read never the-book that John never read the book’.

b. . . . að Jonas borðar oft tómata kemu flestum á óvart (A&F: 220) . . . that John eats often tomatoes surprises most people ‘ . . . that John often eats tomatoes surprises most people’. Verb second: (17)

a. Í gær kláraði mús ostinn alveg. (Icelandic; B&J: 218) yesterday finished a.mouse the.cheese completely ‘Yesterday a mouse completely finished the cheese’. b. Í fyrra máluðu stúdentarnir húsið stundum allir rautt. (B&J: 221) last year painted the.students the.house sometimes all red ‘Last year the students sometimes painted the house all red.’

Transitive expletives (with transitive and unaccusative verbs): (18) a. Það borðuðu sennilega margir jólasveinar bjúgun. (Icelandic; B&J: 196) there ate probably many Christmas.trolls the.sausages ‘Many Christmas trolls probably ate the sausages’. b. Það hafa margir jólasveinar borðað búðing. (B&J: 209) there have many Christmas.trolls eaten pudding ‘Many Christmas trolls have eaten pudding’. c. Það hafa nokkrar kökur verið bakaðar fyrir veisluna (J: 169) there have some cakes been baked for the party ‘Some cakes have been baked for the party’. Object shift: (19)

a. Ég les þessar bœkur aldrei. (Icelandic; full DP; H&P 2005: 430) I read these books never ‘I never read these books’.

168

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini b. Jón þekkir hana ekki. Jon knows her not ‘John doesn’t know her’.

(weak pronoun; H&P: 141)

If we are correct that verbal -s is a person marker in Older Scots, we might expect Older Scots to display the clustering of properties familiar from another language that marks person, such as Icelandic. The first stage of our research on Older Scots indicates that this is indeed the case. Like Icelandic, Older Scots displayed verbraising (20) and transitive expletives (21):17 Verb-raising in Older Scots: (20)

a. . . . that he risis nocht with the Kingis officeris . . . that he rises not with the King’s officers (Older Scots; Acts I 208/2 1397) b. That he gaif never his sister the chaines. (Selkirk B.Ct., ed. 1530–1531). that he gave never his sister the chains c. . . . that he chape nocht micht (Seven Sages 1560) . . . that he buy not power

Transitive expletives (with transitive and also unaccusative verbs) in Older Scots: (21)

a. . . . thare sal na dene of gilde be chosin for this yere. (Stuart 1474) . . . there shall no dean of guild be chosen for this year b. Thay will na man of jugement or learning mak difference there will no man of judgement or learning make difference betuix thir wordis. (Kennedy 1561) between their words c. Thare will ane vengeance fall ws but remede. (Hay 1456) there will one vengeance fall us but remedy

In addition, like the other Germanic (VO) languages (including both the Insular and Mainland Scandinavian languages), Older Scots displayed verb second (22) and object shift (23) (at least with pronouns):18

17

All Older Scots examples beginning with (20) come from Dictionary of the Scots Language, http:// www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/. 18 We have not yet determined whether Older Scots displayed object shift with full DPs. If so, it would be another property shared with Icelandic. Similarly, we don’t yet know if Older Scots allowed verb raising with non-finite verbs, a property apparently found in Icelandic (Jonas 1996: 182). As far as we know, neither property is found in Appalachian English.

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

169

Verb second in Older Scots: (22)

a. In malice spaik I newir ane woord. (Older Scots; Dunbar c. 1508) in malice spoke I never one word b. To Scotland went he than. (Barbour et al. 1375) to Scotland went he then. c. Than knew thai weille that it was he . . . (Blind Harry 1475) then knew they well that it was he.

Object shift (with pronouns) in Older Scots: (23)

a. All lyke hir nocht. (Older Scots; Ritchie 1438) all like her not b. Thai fand it noucht swa then. (Wyntoun c. 1420) they find it not so then c. Thai ar commandit to revele it nocht. (Buke of Chess c. 1500) they are commanded to reveal it not

We focus here on Older Scots verb-raising and transitive expletives (also found in Icelandic), since we take these properties to correlate with person marking. Holmberg and Platzack (1995) took person marking on the verb to reflect the presence of the feature Agr in I (now T), which in turn was the trigger for verb raising. Instead, we take person marking on the verb to reflect a syntactic structure in which the feature person is hosted in a functional projection distinct from T. This generally follows proposals developed for Icelandic by Bobaljik (1995), Bobaljik and Thráinsson (1998), Bobaljik (2002a), Johnson (1990), among others. We take Older Scots to have the structure in (24), where the feature person is hosted in a functional projection independent of T: (24)

FP F⬘ F [person]

TP T⬘ T

vP DP

v⬘

170

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

According to these authors, the feature in F in (24) is the trigger of verb movement; because F is not the sister of a projection of V, it can only be checked if V raises and adjoins to it. Furthermore, the general configuration makes more than one position available for the subject (Spec,TP and Spec,FP), thus accommodating the transitive expletive cases (see, for example, Sigurðsson 1989, Bures 1992, Jonas 1996, Vikner 1995, Bobaljik and Jonas 1996). In Older Scots as well, verb raising to F applies and the same two positions are available for the subject. What happens in a language that doesn’t encode person in a separate functional projection? The relevant structure is as follows: (25)

TP T⬘ T

vP DP

v⬘

In this structure, where there is no independent functional projection hosting a person feature, the features of T can be satisfied via sisterhood, and so verb raising is not required. In addition, only one position for the subject (Spec,TP) is available. This is the case for standard English, which displays no evidence of verb raising (with lexical verbs), and only one position for the subject (so no transitive expletives). We can view (24) and (25) as two different settings of the person marking parameter. In (24), we observe a structure in which person marking is expressed on an independent functional head. In (25), we observe a structure in which person marking is absent or expressed together with other features in T. A question that arises is which of these structures is attested in Appalachian English, a language that resembles Icelandic and Older Scots in displaying transitive expletives, but also standard English in not displaying verb raising? In the next section, we will suggest that Appalachian English displays both settings of the parameter (in different contexts).

9.3 Vestiges of person marking in Appalachian English As illustrated in the introduction, Appalachian English (unlike standard varieties of English) displays transitive expletive constructions and also verbal -s with plural lexical subjects, the latter a signature property of Northern Subject Rule varieties. In Zanuttini and Bernstein (2009) (see also Bernstein 2008b), we have advanced the idea that verbal -s in Appalachian English encodes person. The proposal we developed built on the fact that present-day Appalachian English, like Older Scots,

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

171

distinguishes lexical subjects from pronominal subjects.19 Unlike Older Scots, however, verbal -s in Appalachian English appears to be restricted to third person subjects. We observe first in examples (26) and (27) that verbal -s appears with both singular and plural lexical subjects in Appalachian English: (26)

a. The church is on one side of the road and the school is on the other . . . (App. English) b. . . . one sister lives in Kingsport, and . . . the other sister lives in two-oh-seven or two-oh-eight.

(27)

a. All preachers likes fried chicken. (Appalachian English; DOH) b. Them gals is purty, but they’re crazy as Junebugs. (M&H: 46)

With pronominal subjects, Appalachian English distinguishes I/you/we/they, which do not co-occur with verbal -s, from he/she/(h)it, which do: (28)

a. You see ’em coming in here every evening. (Appalachian English) b. I go down there sometimes and that’s about as far as I go anymore, down there. c. We go up in West Virginia a lot a-train-riding and stuff. d. They live in Pennsylvania.

(29)

a. But she goes to school every day and works. (Appalachian English) b. . . . he makes money, and if he sees something he wants he gets it. c. Well, when it gets too bad they . . . push the snow out.

We follow Kayne (2000) and take I/you/we to encode person, and we extend this to they.20 In other words, what seems to be relevant to the appearance of verbal -s in Appalachian English is not third person per se, but person marking more generally. The only third person pronoun to display person, in our view, is they. This is why verbal -s does not appear with it, though it co-occurs with he/she/(h)it. So the generalization that emerges is that in Appalachian English, verbal -s is triggered whenever the subject noun phrase lacks a person feature.21 19 Tortora and den Dikken’s (2010) approach to the Appalachian English facts follows a tradition that interprets verbal -s with plural lexical subjects as an absence of agreement; their configurational analysis builds on Henry’s (1995) work on Belfast English. We depart from this tradition, reasoning that an overt morpheme should signal presence, not absence, of agreement. 20 We note that Kayne (2000: 139) would not take they to be a person-bearing form, since he views so-called third person pronouns as not expressing person, so not forming a natural class with first/second person forms, which do express person. 21 Although we do not go into detail here (see Zanuttini and Bernstein 2009), the more articulated generalization appeals to the person feature of N, not D. Stated that way, it can account for the examples in the main text as well as to the following complex subjects made up of a personal pronoun in D and a lexical noun in N (the internal structure we assume builds on Postal’s 1966 work). In these pronoun þ noun examples, verbal -s is triggered:

(i)

a. . . . that was a church up there and if you fellows wants to preach up here (DOH) b. I’m a odd person, you’uns already knows that.

172

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

What about standard English verbal -s? In Zanuttini and Bernstein 2009, we have followed Kayne (1989a) and argued that verbal -s in this variety encodes number (i.e. singular), not person. In other words, in this variety subject-verb agreement is triggered by the number feature of the subject, not the person feature. So in standard English he/she/it and singular lexical subjects trigger (singular) verbal -s and we/they and plural lexical subjects trigger (plural) zero marking. Although the reference of you may be singular or plural, you is a grammatically plural form (like French vous) in present-day English, as it also was when you had a singular counterpart thou. Finally, the inconsistent verbal agreement found with first person I (e.g. I am, I was, I think, aren’t I?) leads Kayne (1989a) to argue that I lacks a number feature. In this way, neither you nor I is a counter example to Kayne’s idea that verbal -s in standard English marks singular number. This overly brief comparison between verbal -s in present-day Appalachian English and standard English ties a difference in its distribution to a difference in the features encoded in the verbal system, person in Appalachian English and number in standard English. The different historical developments of the two varieties provide a source for such a distinction, since present-day standard English developed mostly from southern varieties of UK English, whereas Appalachian English developed primarily from northern varieties (Kurath 1928, Montgomery 1989, Montgomery 2004, Schneider 2004). In both cases, we can view the contemporary varieties as displaying vestiges of more complete systems, one (Appalachian English) in which person marking was lost and one (standard English) in which number marking was lost. The breakdown of the full person system seems to correlate with a loss of verb raising. In a parallel development for present-day standard English, Roberts (1993: 263) discusses a correlation between the loss of verb-raising and the loss of the singular/plural distinction (i.e. the loss of plural marking) in early sixteenth century southern (London) English. We return now to the relationship between the ancestor variety, Older Scots, and its descendant, Appalachian English. We reiterate that Appalachian English, although it displays transitive expletives, does not display verb raising, at least with lexical verbs. Furthermore, verbal -s, which was a generalized marker in Older Scots, is restricted in the contemporary variety to contexts in which the subject does not express person: singular and plural lexical subjects and he/she/it. A final property of Appalachian English we note here is that transitive expletives are only found in the presence of finite auxiliaries, modals, or finite be or do, never with finite lexical verbs.22 22 Henry and Cottell (2007) analyzed transitive expletives in Belfast English, which display many of the same properties found in Appalachian English. This work takes transitive expletives to be an innovation in Belfast English, since they are found mostly among younger speakers. In contrast, Appalachian English transitive expletives have been produced by older speakers and we take them to descend from the ancestor variety, Older Scots.

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

173

What does this suggest to us about the structures of the two varieties, Older Scots and Appalachian English? In particular, which of the two structures we proposed in (24) and (25) for Older Scots and standard English, respectively, is attested in Appalachian English? In light of the fact that Appalachian English shares properties of both, we propose that it makes use of both structures. In particular, we propose that the structure in (24), relevant for varieties like Older Scots and Icelandic, can be used in Appalachian English in the presence of auxiliaries, modals, or finite be or do. In contrast, we propose that the structure in (25), relevant for standard English, is the one that must be used in Appalachian English in the presence of finite lexical verbs. This recalls Tanaka’s (2000) proposal about the development of TECs in the history of English. Tanaka claims that English went from having a more articulated structure, akin to that of Insular Scandinavian languages, to a less articulated one, akin to that of Mainland Scandinavian languages and present-day English. During an extended period of transition in the fourteenth century, Tanaka (2000: 490–1) proposes that both structures were available in the grammar, until the more articulated one eventually dropped out in the sixteenth century.23 What is our evidence that (24) can be the phrase structure used in Appalachian English with auxiliaries, modals, and finite be/do? It is only with auxiliaries, modals, or be/do that we see the finite form to the left of VP-adverbs, or to the left of the subject in interrogative clauses; this evidence is consistent with both the structure in (24) and the one in (25). However, it is only with auxiliaries, modals, or be/do that we find evidence for multiple subjects, such as transitive expletives and expletive constructions with unaccusative verbs. We take this to be a reflection of the fact that Appalachian English has the option of merging the person feature as an independent functional head, as in (24). This in turn triggers movement of the finite form from T to F, and makes available an additional position for the subject. In other words, Appalachian English can have either structure in this context: whether person is a feature on T (as in (25)) or a feature carried by an independent functional head merged above T (as in (24)), the derivation will converge in the presence of auxiliaries, modals, and be/do, as they can raise from T to F, checking the person feature. What is our evidence that (25) must be the structure instantiated in Appalachian English with lexical verbs? The main piece of evidence is that lexical verbs never appear to the left of VP adverbs, or of the subject in interrogative clauses, suggesting that there is no verb raising. If the verb does not raise to T, it cannot raise any higher, either; therefore the more articulated structure in (24), which results from the merge of the person feature as the independent head F, cannot yield a convergent derivation, because F’s feature cannot be checked on account of the

23

Tanaka (2000: 486) relates the change in clausal structure to a change in the status of subject pronouns from clitics to full pronouns.

174

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

absence of verb raising. Moreover, multiple subjects never appear with lexical verbs in Appalachian English. We take this to confirm the hypothesis that only the less articulated structure in (25) leads to a convergent derivation with lexical verbs, as this structure does not allow for an additional subject position. Our proposal that Appalachian English displays both (24) and (25) can nicely account for the properties we have observed so far, but should we be surprised by the suggestion that a language can make use of two syntactic representations for a finite clause, one in which a feature is merged as an independent head and another in which it is merged as part of a bundle of features? The co-existence of two syntactic representations is arguably what happens in the process of language change. In this regard, Kroch (2001: 719–21) reviews Ellegärd’s (1953) study of English do in late Middle and early Modern English, which shows a prolonged period of time (300 years) during which the rate of verb movement (V-to-T) declines and the frequency of use of periphrastic do increases. In parallel fashion, we are proposing here that the grammar of Appalachian English is transitioning from a system with a more articulated structure in the inflectional domain (in which the person feature is merged as an independent functional head) to one with a less articulated structure (in which the person feature is merged as part of a bundle of features on T).24 If the rise of periphrastic do correlates with the loss of verb-movement in the history of English, it is interesting to observe that Older Scots displayed an instance of periphrastic do alongside verb raising. We will label it ‘unemphatic do’, as it appeared in affirmative declarative clauses without expressing emphasis: (31)

a. . . . I Drawis Zow to witnes, and doys testify. (Older Scots; Douglas 1513) . . . I draw you to witness, and do testify b. I do desyre of thame no supporting. (Sir David Lyndsay Mon. 1552) I do desire of them no supporting c. In every volume quhilk thé lyst do wryte. (Douglas Ænid of Virgil 1513) in every volume which thee list do write

Meurman-Solin’s (1993: 238–9) work with the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (1450–1700) shows that unemphatic do seems to have been introduced into Scottish prose in the 1550s, which is much later than what has been found for English. According to this work, in Older Scots of the seventeenth century ‘high frequencies have been attested in texts dating from the last decade of the century’ (1993: 239). Our comparative work on Older Scots and Appalachian English suggests that Appalachian English is, generally speaking, a conservative dialect. So far, we have seen that it resembles Older Scots in displaying person in the inflectional system as 24 Contact between Older Scots and the southern UK varieties of English, as well as that between Appalachian English and standard American English may also be relevant, but we do not address it here (see Montgomery 1994: 93).

A diachronic shift in the expression of person

175

well as transitive expletives. Now we also observe that Appalachian English displays unemphatic do:25 (32)

a. After they did organize, it went on and . . . (Appalachian English) b. I never did know him. c. Well, they didn’t have much for you to get when they did rob you because they did . . . d. He just barely did snore, you know.

These facts are consistent with our proposal that Appalachian English represents a language in transition between a grammar with limited verb movement of certain finite forms (auxiliaries and modals), from T to F, and one that lacks that additional step of verb movement. Under our account, this change correlates with the change in the encoding of person in the inflectional system: the person feature used to be merged as an independent functional head and is now being merged as a feature of T. Sentences with a finite auxiliary or modal can enter a derivation with either type of encoding for the person feature (as F or as one of the features on T), whereas those with lexical verbs only yield a convergent derivation if person is encoded in T.

9.4 Summary and further issues In this chapter we have discussed the notion of parameter as it applies to the expression of person, adopting the characterization that person may or may not be expressed as an independent functional projection of the inflectional domain. If it is, the syntactic configuration is such that the language will exhibit verb movement and more than one position available for the subject. In light of these assumptions, we have discussed three closely-related varieties and analyzed them as follows: a) The grammatical system of Older Scots expresses person as an independent functional projection in the inflectional domain. This is the positive setting of the parameter. b) The grammatical system of contemporary standard English does not express person as an independent head in the inflectional domain (in fact, it does not express it in the inflectional system at all). This is the negative setting of the parameter. c) The grammatical system of Appalachian English is intermediate between the two: it can express person as an independent functional head (the positive setting of the parameter), but also, alternatively, as a feature on T (the negative setting of the parameter). Whereas auxiliaries and modals yield a convergent derivation with both kinds of encoding, lexical verbs do so only when person is a feature on T. 25 The existence of unemphatic do in Appalachian English is noted by Montgomery (1989: 244–5) and has also been described for Southwest English dialects by Roberts (1993: 307).

176

Judy B. Bernstein and Raffaella Zanuttini

Through a comparison of Appalachian English and its ancestor Older Scots, we have been able to provide further support for the idea that Appalachian English expresses person in its inflectional system (a proposal we had originally made on the basis of independent considerations). This has also led us to see Appalachian English as a language whose grammar is in transition between the two settings of the parameter: it used to express person as an independent head, but it now can employ that strategy only in limited contexts (when a finite auxiliary or modal is present in the derivation). In the absence of a finite auxiliary or modal, it expresses person as a feature on T. In addition to the shift between expressing person as an independent functional head and expressing it as a feature on T, our data also reveal another diachronic shift: grammars may shift from overtly marking person in the inflectional system (on the verb) to overtly marking it in the nominal domain (on the subject noun phrase).26 This shift can be seen by comparing the grammar of the three languages we have discussed. We have noticed that in Older Scots person was always overtly marked on the verb, either by means of a subject clitic left-adjoined to the raised verb, or by the verbal morpheme -s. In contrast, in Appalachian English, person is overtly marked on the verb (via verbal -s) only if it is not expressed on the subject. Finally, in contemporary standard English, person is never overtly marked on the verb, but only on the subject. These three differences in the morphological encoding are likely to be a reflection of three ways in which the person feature can be encoded in the syntax in the inflectional domain: as an independent functional head, as part of a bundle of features, or not at all. 26 The property of expressing person in the inflectional domain or in the nominal domain is one that has been argued to distinguish Insular Scandinavian languages (like Icelandic and Faroese) from Mainland Scandinavian languages (like Swedish and Norwegian) in Platzack and Holmberg’s work.

10 The formal syntax of alignment change JOHN WHITMAN AND YUKO YANAGIDA

10.1 Introduction Syntactic alignment refers to the patterning of morphosyntactic devices in a language (e.g. agreement, case marking, word order) that distinguish internal and external arguments. Such devices are used by linguistic typologists to define the systems known as accusative, ergative, or active alignment. Change in syntactic alignment has been a favourite topic among historical linguists for over thirty years, roughly since Anderson’s (1976) paper and Chung’s (1976) dissertation, both of which examined syntactic changes related to ergativity. Within non-generative approaches to syntactic change, changes in alignment have often been described in terms of reanalyses of a specific construction or morphological marker. For example, it has been claimed that reanalysis of the passive in an accusative system can result in ergative alignment, or that genitive or instrumental case markers can be reanalysed as ergative markers. A generative (specifically, a minimalist) analysis of alignment change requires a different approach. Rather than focusing on individual constructions or morphemes, it investigates the formal properties of the grammatical system, particularly the feature specifications of functional heads, and the surface manifestations of those specifications that lead language learners to initiate the change. This chapter builds on recent work on non-accusative alignment in a minimalist framework to attempt such an investigation. In what follows we first define what we think is an emerging consensus about the formal analysis of non-accusative alignment. We use this synchronic baseline analysis to study the change from a non-nominative subject construction to tenseconditioned split ergativity in Iranian, and changes in alignment centred around nominalized clauses in premodern Japanese. These examples involve changes that are relatively well attested. The Indo-Iranian case is among the most thoroughly discussed in the alignment change literature. The Old Japanese (OJ) system has been

178

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

identified as split active only recently (Yanagida 2005, 2007a,b), but the facts are well studied. The central argument of this chapter is that non-accusative alignment is fixed by a small number of specific parameter settings. Changes to or from non-accusative alignment result from changes in these settings. Non-accusative alignment occurs when v assigns inherent case to the external argument in its specifier. This property can be identified with a feature in v that we label for convenience [SpecCASE]. We assume that [SpecCASE] is incompatible with the presence of uninterpretable case features on v. The consequence is that v is unable to check the case feature of the object, so that the object must check its case feature by some other means. In the non-accusative alignment exemplified in Indo-Iranian languages such as Hindi and Kurmanji (northern Kurdish), the object enters into an agree relation with T. Change to a system of this type occurs when language learners encounter primary linguistic data where there is a detectable agree relation between the object and T, but no evidence that the object checks the EPP feature of T. As we show in section 10.2, this kind of configuration arises in fairly specific sets of circumstances. In the active pattern exemplified by Old Japanese, the object checks its case feature by raising to a functional projection immediately to the left of vP, resulting in OSV order. The change to accusative alignment in this language occurred when inherent case in Spec,vP was attrited, largely because of changes in the pronominal system. The eventual result of these changes is loss of the [SpecCASE] feature in v. Old Japanese also raises the issue of the source for such an alignment system in earlier stages of the language. Yanagida and Whitman (2009) suggest, in line with proposals by Gildea (1998, 2000), that the system results from reanalysis of a predicate nominal system involving an object nominalization. The chapter is organized as follows. In 10.2 we establish what we suggest is a consensus theory of ergative alignment. In section 10.3 we examine the case of Iranian. In this section we also discuss a problem with the widespread hypothesis that ergative alignment can originate from passive constructions. In section 10.4 we discuss the changes in alignment of premodern Japanese.

10.2 A baseline theory of ergativity A formal account of alignment change requires a precise synchronic account of ergativity. While research over the past twenty years has made clear the heterogeneity of non-accusative alignment systems, we adopt as a baseline approach the treatment of Hindi alignment in Anand and Nevins (2006). Under this approach, agents receive inherent ergative case in their base position Spec,v, but raise to the surface subject position in Spec,T to check the EPP feature of T. T enters into an

The formal syntax of alignment change

179

agree relation with the direct object, checking its own uninterpretable f features and the f features of the object, including case. Anand and Nevins take the view that traces are ignored by the Minimal Link Condition and v in Hindi is defective; therefore T is able to establish an agree relation with the object. (1)

(adapted from Anand and Nevins 2006: 17)

TP

DPergS [uCase] vP Raam-ne Ram-erg tergS

T' T [EPP] [uϕ]

v'

vdef [uSpeccase]

VP DPo [iϕ][uCase] rotii bread

V khaayii eat.prf.fem

‘Ram ate bread.’ Thus in (1), the agent argument Raam receives inherent ergative case in Spec,vP, and raises to check the EPP feature of T. The uninterpretable f–features of T are checked under Agree with the internal argument rotii ‘bread’. The main empirical evidence that Anand and Nevins provide for this analysis comes from scope reconstruction facts: while ergative subjects take unambiguous wide scope over objects, nominative subjects (found outside the perfective paradigm) allow both wide and narrow scope relative to an object. This difference is important, as most previous treatments have claimed that ergative and nominative subjects in ‘morphologically ergative’ languages are syntactically indistinguishable. Anand and Nevins account for the scopal difference by deriving scope ambiguity from reconstruction, and postulating that only items in an agree relationship may be reconstructed. The analysis of ergative as inherent case assigned at the base position of the subject converges with many recent treatments (Woolford 1997; Legate 2002, 2006, 2008; Aldridge 2004) and is, we believe, the core element of a consensus analysis of ergative (and active) alignment.1 Movement of the ergative subject to Spec,TP, in 1 Anand and Nevins describe Hindi ergative case as lexical case. We adopt the view of Woolford (2006) on the distinction between lexical and inherent case: lexical case is idiosyncratic, associated with particular lexical items, while inherent case is associated with particular thematic roles or argument positions, such as the position of external arguments.

180

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

Hindi and similar ergative languages, further explains some shared properties of ergative subjects and nominative subjects. The agree relation between T and the object explains the object-triggered agreement pattern in Hindi and other IndoIranian languages. However this baseline analysis also allows room for parametric variation. First, whether or not lexical ergative is assigned to all external arguments in Spec,vP accounts for the difference between ergative languages in the strict sense, where ergative subjects are restricted to transitive clauses, and so-called active languages (Sapir 1911), where lexical ‘active’ case occurs on agentive subjects in all clause types, including intransitive unergatives. This can be handled by parametric variation in the features associated with inherent case assigned to Spec,v. Inherent ‘ergative’ is assigned to the specifier of [transitive] v, while inherent ‘active’ has no such restriction (Legate 2008).2 Second, there is parametric variation in the locus of EPP features. While in Hindi an EPP feature appears to attract the inherently case marked (ergative) external argument to Spec,TP, this does not occur in Old Japanese active clauses, as we see in section 10.3. In contrast, in Old Japanese active clauses, a functional head immediately above vP bears an EPP and uninterpretable case feature. This head attracts the object, deriving surface OSV order, and checks its case feature. Summarizing, assignment of inherent case to the external argument by v is the core feature of non-accusative alignment.

10.3 Iranian: non-nominative subject with participial predicate to ergative The syntactic changes resulting in the ergative pattern in Indo-Iranian have often been analyzed as resulting from reanalysis of passive to ergative (Matthews 1952, Estival and Myhill 1988, Harris and Campbell 1995). In this section, we dispute this analysis, adopting instead the hypothesis of Benveniste (1952/1966) (see also Anderson 1976) that ergative in Iranian results from reanalysis of a non-nominative subject pattern, described by Benvensite as a possessive construction. We then consider the broader theoretical reasons why passive > ergative reanalysis is problematic. 10.3.1 Iranian The Iranian ergative pattern originates from constructions involving perfective participles in -ta (< pIE *-to). In transitives, these show gender and number agreement with the object, and do not assign accusative case. In a highly influential proposal, Benveniste (1952/1966) argues that the source of the Old Iranian pattern is 2 Note that, strictly speaking, the label of Hindi as ‘ergative’ is incorrect: Hindi is an active system, as it allows ergative intransitives (unergatives). This in fact simplifies the characterization of Hindi ne: it is assigned to all external arguments, while ergative marking in the strict sense is restricted to external arguments in [transitive] clauses.

The formal syntax of alignment change

181

a periphrastic possessive construction. We assign this construction the structure shown for the Old Persian example in (2): (2)

ima [CP tya [TP manā [VP tmanā[PrtP PROmana krtam ttya] [exist e]]]] this.n what.n 1s.gen do.ptcp.nom.s.n ‘This (is) what I have done since’ (Kent 1953: DB I, 28–29, cited from Haig 2008: 26)

In (2), manā (1s.gen) is an argument of the null higher existential verb, following the analysis of Benveniste, who assimilates the pattern to the genitive possessor þ ‘be’ construction in Old Persian shown in (3):3 (3)

utā¼taiy tauhmā vasiy biyā and¼2s.gen seed much be.can ‘And may you have much seed’ (Benveniste 1966: 179)

The genitive possessor is generated in the matrix VP and controls PRO in the external argument position of the participial phrase. We take take no position on whether genitive at the stage of (2)–(3) is an inherent case or is assigned structurally within the matrix VP, but diachronically, the genitive on the matrix posessor is the result of the merger of genitive and dative in Old Persian. In (2) we show the matrix genitive possessor as raised to Spec,TP, based on the arguments of Haig (2008: 52–3). Haig shows that the genitive in this pattern controls null subjects across coordinate clauses and into clausal adjuncts. On this analysis, which essentially formalizes Benveniste’s (1952/1966) proposal, the construction in (2) is a quirky or nonnominative subject pattern. The possessor argument in VP—perhaps analysable as an experiencer or location argument—receives case within VP but raises to check the EPP feature of matrix T. This possessor argument also controls PRO in the external argument position of the participial phrase. Cardona (1970) argues contra Benveniste that the genitive pattern in Old Persian was an Iranian innovation and that the original Indo-Aryan pattern is the one attested in Sanskrit, where the agent is marked with instrumental case. The debate continues to this day, with Bynon (2005) arguing that the possessive construction is the older pattern within Indo-Iranian and that the instrumental construction an innovation. However for the purposes of determining the proximate source of ergative alignment in later varieties of Iranian, this debate is irrelevant. The source of ergative alignment in Middle Iranian and modern Iranian ergative languages is the pattern with genitive-marked subjects in (2). This can be seen in the Middle Persian example in (4), where the oblique first person singular pronoun man is the

3 In both Old and Middle Persian, as illustrated in (2) and (4) respectively, the matrix copula was frequently null, especially with third person singular nominative (object) arguments.

182

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

descendant of the Old Iranian first person singular genitive/dative pronoun manā in (2): (4)

den īg man wizīd religion which 1s.obl choose.ptcp ‘The religion which I choose’ (Boyce 175: a,1, cited from Haig 2008: 26)

By Middle Iranian, overt expression of case has been reduced to an opposition between oblique and nominative, and the participial construction in (4) becomes the only way to express past tense. The reflex of the participial pattern in Western Iranian languages such as Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) is the tense-sensitive ergative pattern in (5): (5)

a. Min tu 1s.obl 2s.nom ‘I saw you.’

dît-î. saw-2s

(Matras 1997: 617)

b. Ez te di-bîn-im. (Matras 1997: 617) 1s.nom 2s.obl prog-saw-1s ‘I see you’ In the past (5a.), the ergative subject is marked oblique; agreement is triggered by the nominative direct object. In the present (5b.), the subject is marked nominative and triggers agreement. Matras (1992, 1997) shows that, in past transitive clauses, the ergative (oblique- marked) argument has subject properties such as being a target for control. The subject properties of ergative arguments can be explained, as in Anand and Nevins’ analysis of Hindi, by assuming that both nominative and ergative subjects raise to Spec,T. However ergative subjects also show syntactic properties distinct from nominative subjects: (6)

a. Ez çû-m hindur û t1s ji xwe ra rûnis¸t-im. 1s.nom went-1s inside and for self p sat-1s ‘I went inside and sat down’ b. Ez hat-im hindur û *(min) got rojbas¸. 1s.nom came-1s inside and 1s.obl said goodday ‘I went inside and said good day’

(Matras 1997: 640)

(Matras 1997: 624)

The contrast in (6) can be explained by analyzing (6a.) as a case of across-the-board (ATB) raising of the subject to matrix Spec,T. The subjects in (6a.) in both conjuncts bear the same f– (in particular, case) features. In (6b.), however, the nominative and ergative (oblique) subjects bear different case features; thus ATB raising is blocked.4 4

The data are somewhat more complicated, in an interesting way. Contexts parallel to (6b.) with a third person singular subject allow a null subject in the second conjunct (Matras 1997: 641). This can be explained by a change in progress that is underway in Kurmanji, whereby many speakers allow in informal

The formal syntax of alignment change

183

We have seen that in a relatively well-studied modern Iranian language identified by specialists as ergative, the properties of ergative alignment are consistent with the baseline model adopted in 10.2. Not all Middle Iranian languages (e.g. Sogdian) are ergative, but for those that are, such as Middle Persian in (4), the analysis in 10.2 is consistent with the data. In the development from Old to Middle Iranian, the main changes are the merger of the non-nominative case forms on pronouns, the loss of most case endings on nouns, and the loss of aorist tense, with the result that the participial construction was reanalyzed as the only way to express past. We take this last change to be accompanied by reanalysis of existential ‘be’ in the participial construction as an auxiliary. As a consequence of this reanalyis, ‘be’ ceases to assign a theta role, and the pattern in (2) is reanalyzed with the oblique subject originating in Spec,vP: (7)

[CP īg [TP man [vP which 1s.obl ‘which I choose’ (¼4)

tman

wizīd tīg] [cop e]]]] choose.ptcp.3s

The pattern in (7) is fully ergative in the sense defined in 10.2. The derivation of this pattern from the possessive pattern in (2) involves a minimal step, loss of the theta position (possessor or location) originally associated with existential ‘be’. After this change, the trace of the external argument in (7) must be analyzed as the foot of a chain whose head does not check case, since T checks its case with the object. Therefore, the foot of the chain, in Spec,vP, is analyzed by learners as an inherent case position. The consequence is the introduction of the [SpecCASE] feature into v. Viewed this way, the possessive structure hypothesized by Benveniste provides the crucial ingredients for an accusative to ergative reanalysis. Participles already have the property of not licensing accusative case, and agreeing with their objects. IndoIranian-type ergative languages further require movement of the agent argument to Spec,TP (that is, T in these languages bears an EPP feature). Here too, it is crosslinguistically common for ‘quirky’ possessor obliques to raise to subject position. If we assume that matrix possessors rose to Spec,TP in the source consruction (2), no change in the surface position of the subject is required in (7). 10.3.2 Passive origin theories This contrasts with the hypothesis that ergatives, in Indo-Iranian in particular, derive from passives. Some problems with this hypothesis have been widely pointed discourse a ‘double oblique’ pattern also found in some Eastern Iranian languages (Payne 1980), where both subject and object surface with oblique case. In the double oblique pattern, normally neither subject nor object agrees with the verb, but some speakers also allow a pattern where the subject in this pattern triggers agreement (Dorleijn 1996). Since third person singular agreement is zero, a null third person subject in the second conjunct can be analyzed as pro licensed by agreement, rather than the trace of ATB raising.

184

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

out. For instance, while Indo-Iranian had a highly productive passive in -ya with instrumental agents, no Indic or Iranian variety has developed an ergative pattern based on -ya (Butt 2001, Bynon 2005, Haig 2008). In this section we focus on a theoretical problem for passive origin theories. ‘Quirky case’ phenomena, involving movement of a non-nominative DP into subject position, are well known crosslinguistically. Possessor datives (or in the case of Iranian, dative/genitives) are one of the best known instances of this phenomenon. But ‘quirky by-phrases’, that is, patterns where the agent phrase in a passive moves to subject position, appear not to exist. To make this point, consider Korean case stacking as a productive diagnostic for quirky case. In Korean, the ‘inner’ case of the DP is assigned in its base position, and the ‘outer’ case marker in its derived position (Yoon 1996). In the instance of DPs with stacked nominative case, the DP moves to Spec,TP to check the EPP feature of T. Possessor datives, along with other oblique case markers such as locative, can be ‘case stacked’ with nominative case (8a.,b.). However case stacking with agent phrases in passives is impossible, even when the agent marker is spelled out as morphological dative (8c.):5 (8)

a. Chungkuk uy puca hanthey ka ton China gen rich dat nom money ‘Chinese rich people have the most money’

i nom

kacang most

manhta. plentiful

b. Chungkuk eyse ka cicin i cal nanta. China loc nom earthquake nom often occur ‘In China earthquakes often occur’ c. Holangi hanthey (*ka) so ka mek-hi-ess-ta. Tiger by nom cow nom eat-pass-pst-dec ‘The cow was eaten by the tiger’ The generalization that agent phrases in passives cannot occupy subject position is a basic tenent of modern syntactic theories. The issue is salient in frameworks incorporating the VP-internal subject hypothesis; in such frameworks, since Fukui and Speas (1986), it has become commonplace to generate the passive by-phrase in the underlying external argument position. Collins (2005) and Bowers (2010) present hypotheses which explicitly account for why the by-phrase does not raise to subject position (and why the internal argument is able to raise over it). Regardless of which account of these facts is correct, the core fact is that agents in passives do not raise to subject position, even for EPP feature checking. Let us refer to this property as the [anti-EPP] feature of agent phrases in passives.

5

We are grateful to Kyung-Ah Kim for assistance with the Korean data.

The formal syntax of alignment change

185

The [anti-EPP] feature raises a basic problem for any diachronic account that derives Indo-Iranian-type ergative alignment from a passive constructions, since in these languages the ergative case marked external argument moves to Spec,T. Thus a passive > ergative reanalysis requires that the [anti-EPP feature] of the by-phrase in the passive source construction somehow be lost. The absence of a clear explanation for such a development casts doubt on the general plausibility of passive > ergative reanalysis. Below we review the best known cases where passive > ergative analysis has been proposed, and suggest that they are indeed dubious. 10.3.3 Indic Indic is superficially a better case for passive > ergative reanalysis than Iranian, because the predominant transitive pattern in Sanskrit with -ta participles expresses agents in the instrumental, as in -ya passives. However as Butt (2001) points out, it is unlikely that the particles used to mark ergative subject in modern Indic languages, such as Hindi -ne, descend from the Sanskrit instrumental. Butt points out that specialists have observed since the nineteenth century that the Sanskrit instrumental cannot be the source for -ne; instead, the instrumental merged with the original dative into an oblique case ending -e. -E is used to mark the external argument in past transitive constructions in Middle Indic varieties, and modern varieties such as Assamese. But note that -e has a dative, as well as an instrumental source. This raises the possibility that Middle and Modern Indic ergative patterns have a source from a possessor construction, like (2). This is essentially the position of Bynon (2005). 10.3.4 Instrumentals Garrett (1990) argues that instrumentals can be the diachronic source for NP split ergativity, that is, the common pattern where ergative marking applies to NPs low on Silverstein’s (1976) NP hierarchy, such as inanimates. The basic idea is that in an agentless expression like the door opened with the key, the instrument argument can be reinterpreted as an ergative subject, and the case marking it receives (say, instrumental) reinterpreted as ergative case. Note that Garrett’s hypothesis does not say that passives can be reanalyzed as ergatives. It specifically does not claim that passive by-phrases are reanalyzed as ergative subjects; it says that instruments can be reanalyzed this way. Garrett’s claim is consistent with the view we have developed here that ‘quirky case’—movement of an argument to Spec,TP—is a step in the reanalysis of an oblique argument as an ergative subject, because instrument arguments, unlike agent phrases in passives, may move to subject position. Thus instrument arguments in Korean, unlike agent phrases in passives, do allow nominative case stacking, unlike the agent phrases of passives:6 6 Kyung-Ah Kim points out to us that instrument or cause arguments allow case stacking in Korean lexical passives as well—minimally contrasting with agents, which do not.

186

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

(9) I nom uy wuwulcung ey uyhase ka ay tul i ceyil manhi cwuk-ess-ci. that bastard gen depression by nom kid pl nom most many died-pst-s ‘Probably because of that bastard depression kids died the most’ 10.3.5

Polynesian

Polynesian is often cited as an example of passive > ergative reanalysis, based on Chung’s (1976) hypothesis that the passive pattern found in accusative Polynesian languages such as Maori was reanalyzed to produce the ergative pattern found in languages such as Tongan and Samoan. However this hypothesis coexists with the opposed view that the change in Polynesian was ergative to accusative. Dixon (1994: 192) concludes that in the absence of ‘a plausible reconstruction that is plainly superior to any competitor’ ‘neither side in this debate has so far proved its case’. A recent argument for the ergative > accusative hypothesis is Kikusawa (2002). Ball (2007) argues for the accusative > ergative position. In sum, there is no clear case of passive to ergative reanalysis as a historically attested phenomenon. Given that passives are common in the world’s languages, and ergative alignment is not uncommon, this fact would be surprising if passive were a common source of ergativity. The approach we have developed in this section explains why passives do not seem to give rise to ergative alignment: in core cases of ergative alignment, the ergative subject occupies the surface subject position. Passives systematically disallow agent phrases from occupying subject position. This is a fundamental obstacle to reanalysis of the agent phrase in a passive as an ergative subject. In this section we have shown that Benveniste’s analysis of the Iranian -ta participle construction as participle þ ‘be’, with ‘be’ selecting a possessor argument coreferent with the agent of the participial phrase, accounts naturally for the genesis of tense-sensitive ergativity. In the original construction, the possessor argument checks the EPP feature of T. After ‘be’ is reanalyzed as an auxiliary, eliminating the possessor theta position, the agent argument is reanalyzed as raising directly to check the EPP feature of T.

10.4 Alignment change in Japanese Modern Japanese (all varieties) is a textbook example of a nominative-accusative language. Nominative ga marks the subject of both transitive and intransitive clauses. Accusative o marks the direct object of transitive clauses. (10)

a. Taroo ga odotta. Taroo nom danced ‘Taroo danced’

The formal syntax of alignment change

187

b. Hana ga saita. flower nom bloomed ‘Flowers bloomed’ c. Taroo ga kabin o Taroo nom vase acc ‘Taroo broke the vase’

kowasita. broke

Historically, however, ModJ ga descends from a genitive marker, which is used in Old Japanese (eighth century) to mark possessors of NP and the subjects of a variety of subordinate clause types. In OJ, ga co-exists with another genitive marker, no, which is the ancestor of the modern standard Japanese genitive marker. The syntactic and semantic differences between ga and no in OJ have long been debated by traditional Japanese linguists, but Yanagida (2005, 2007a,b) argues that ga functioned as an active case marker, in a split active system restricted to certain types of subordinate clauses. In this section, we first briefly introduce the phenomenon of active alignment, then motivate the split active analysis of OJ. We describe the change from split active to nominative alignment in Middle and Early Modern Japanese, and then suggest a possible scenario for the source of split active alignment in nominalized clauses in earlier Japanese. 10.4.1 Active alignment In active languages, also called active-stative (Klimov 1974, 1977; Mithun 1991) or split intransitive (Dixon 1994), intransitive subjects show two distinct patterns: agentive intransitive subjects (typically unergatives) pattern with transitive subjects, while non-agentive intransitive subjects (typically unaccusatives) pattern with transitive objects. This is illustrated by the Guaraní examples in (11).7 (11)

a. A-jerok. 1sa-dance ‘I dance’

b. Che-rugw. 1sp-bleed ‘I bleed’

c. A-hetu ~ pee~. 1sa-kiss 2pp ‘I kiss you all’ Yanagida and Whitman (2009) argue that active is a distinct alignment type from ergative, in two respects. First, the feature [transitive] plays a crucial role in the assignment of ergative case, but it plays no role in active languages. Second, as first observed by Dahlstrom (1983), active and ergative languages are sensitive to Silverstein’s (1976) nominal hierarchy in different ways. 7

We are indebted to Victor Burgos for the Guaraní data.

188

(12)

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida The Nominal Hierarchy (adapted from Silverstein 1976) pronouns > proper nouns > common nouns 1st > 2nd > 3rd person human [specific] > human > animate > inanimate

NP split ergativity applies from left to right: if ergative marking applies to some NP on the hierarchy, it applies to every NP type on its right (cf. Dixon 1994). In contrast, active marking applies from right to left: if an NP type receives active marking, every NP type to its left does too. For example, active marking may be restricted to pronouns (Koasati; Mithun 1991), or first and second person prounouns (e.g. Lakhota; Dahlstrom 1983), or to human arguments (Central Pomo; Mithun 1991). This is the exact opposite of the situation found with NP split ergativity, where, for example in Warlpiri, ergative marking is restricted to full NPs, and personal pronouns follow an accusative system (cf. Legate 2002). While noting the difference above, we apply the basic analysis presented in 10.2 to active languages as well. Inherent case is assigned to the external argument in its base position regardless of whether or not v bears a [transitive] feature. Assignment of inherent active case may be sensitive to the f–feature composition of the external argument, so that inherent case is licensed, for example, only for [human] or [pronominal] external arguments. We discuss the licensing of object case after introducing the basic facts of OJ alignment. 10.4.2 Active alignment in Old Japanese Through Late Middle Japanese (sixteenth century), Japanese distinguished conclusive (root) clauses from a variety of subordinate clause types that we will refer to as nominalized. The conclusive/nominalized distinction was marked on the predicate in some conjugations. The conclusive form of the verb (13) appears in main clauses and in complement clauses selected by verbs of utterance and cognition such as ‘think’ and ‘say’. Conclusive clauses show an accusative case marking pattern: both subject and object are bare (zero-marked). Conclusive: Accusative (13) a. Wa go opo kimi Ø kuni Ø siras-u ras-i. (Man’yôshû (MY) 933) I gen great lord country rule-conc seem-conc ‘My great lord seems to rule the country’ b. [waga yadwo no ume Ø saki–tar-i to] tuge my house gen plum bloom-prf-conc comp tell ‘telling (you) that the plum has blossomed at my house’

(MY 1011)

The formal syntax of alignment change

189

The subordinate clause types we have labelled ‘nominalized’ are exemplified by the adnominal examples in (14).8 Adnominal: Active (14)

a. wa-ga sekwo ga koto Ø tor-u nape ni I-gen husband a koto take-adn when at ‘As soon as my husband takes up his koto (to play on)’

(MY 4135)

b. Wagimokwo ga swode mo sipopo ni naki-si so omopayu. (MY 4357) my.wife a sleeves even drenched cry-pst.adn foc long.for ‘I long for my wife who cried so her sleeves were drenched’ c. Kanasiki kworo ga ninwo Ø pos-ar-u kamo. dear child a cloth drying-is-adn exclam ‘My dearest maid is drying her linens!’ d. Ikuri ni so puka miru Ø op-uru. Reef on foc deep kelp grow-adn ‘It is on reefs that the deep sea kelp grows’

(MY 3351)

(MY 135)

We see an active pattern in OJ (14). In (14a.–b.) the external argument, that is, the agent of the transitive (14a.) and unergative (14b.) verbs, is marked by the genitive particle ga. In (14c.–d.), the patient subject of the unaccusative verb behaves like the object of the transitive verb in (14a.): both are zero-marked. Ga marks DPs higher on the nominal hierarchy (12). The first and second person pronouns wa and na are obligatorily marked with ga. [Human] DPs are marked by ga when specific. Nonhuman DPs do not appear with ga, except for anthropomorphized nouns such as tazu ‘crane’ and pi ‘sun’. With third person subjects, the choice of ga depends not only on the semantics of the DP but on the semantics of the predicate. The contrast between ga and zero marked subjects is sensitive to the Nominal Hierarchy and the thematic role assigned by the verb. Table 10.1 shows the active case marking pattern in nominalized clauses (see Yanagida 2007a,b; Yanagida and Whitman 2009). TABLE 10.1. The active system in nominalized clauses

subject object

active

inactive

ga Ø

Ø

8 Other nominalized clauses types are the realis (izenkei) and irrealis (mizenkei) conditional, and in Old Japanese, nominalizations in -aku.

190

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

10.4.3 Object marking in Old Japanese nominalized clauses While bare objects occur between the subject and the verb, they are almost without exception non-branching N0s, as in (14c.). Yanagida (2007a,b) shows that objects in this position are incorporated into the verb. The restriction of bare objects to incorporated N0s suggests that v in nominalized clauses is unable to check case on the object.9 Of course this is what is expected in a language with non-accusative alignment: in our baseline account of ergative/active languages, v does not license object case. How, then, are phrasal objects licensed? Yanagida (2006) shows that phrasal objects appear to the left of ga-marked subjects in Old Japanese. In other words, for phrasal objects in nominalized clauses in OJ, constituent order is OSV, a striking difference from later varieties of Japanese. Examples are given in (15). (15) a. pana tatibana wo wotomye-ra ga tama nuku made ni (MY 4166) orange blossom wo maiden-pl a bead thread-adn until loc ‘until the maidens thread the orange blossoms on their beads’ b. kimi wo a ga omopu toki lord wo 1s a long.for time ‘the time when I long for my dearest lord’

(MY 4301)

Some, but not all phrasal objects are marked by wo, the ancestor of the modern Japanese accusative marker o. However wo does not appear to be an object case marker yet at this period. It marks not just objects, but a variety of adjuncts including PPs (Motohashi 1989, Yanagida 2006): (16)

A ga koromo sita ni wo 1s a robe under loc obj ‘Wear this robe of mine underneath’

ki-mas-e wear-hon-imp

(MY 3584)

Yanagida and Whitman (2009) show that OJ wo is a marker of specificity. Thus wo may mark wh-phrases, but when it does, they receive a specific interpretation: (17)

Sipo tide

pwi-na-ba recede-prf-if

tamamo seaweed

kari cut

tum-ye gather-imp

ipye house

no gen

imo ga pamaduto kop-aba nani wo simyesa-m-u? (MY 360) wife a shore.gift want-if what obj proffer-con-adn ‘If the tide has gone out, cut and gather the precious seaweed! If my wife at home asks for gifts from the shore, which (other) shall I offer her?’

9 The proposal that structural case is not assigned to objects in OJ adnominal clauses was originally made by Miyagawa (1989).

The formal syntax of alignment change

191

We see then that OJ objects are fundamentally bare, conforming to the active case marking pattern in Table 10.1, but they may be marked with wo if specific. The most striking fact about OJ nominalized transitive clauses is that their constituent order is OSV. Since placement of non-incorporated objects to the left of the subject is obligatory, this fact would seem to be related to case licensing.10 10.4.4 Analysis On the baseline account of non-accusative alignment that we presented in 10.2, nonaccusative v has two properties: it assigns inherent case to the external argument, but does not license case on the object. The Hindi pattern as analysed by Anand and Nevins represents one reponse to this situation: movement of the external argument to check the EPP feature of T enables an Agree relation between T and the object. Old Japanese represents another response to the basic properties of nonaccusative v. There is no evidence for an Agree relation between T and the object in OJ, but there is clear evidence for dislocation of the object. We hypothesize that the object is attracted by an EPP-bearing functional projection on the minimal phase edge. The object checks its case feature with the head of this projection. Because the inherent case of the external argument is checked off in situ, movement of the object over the subject in (Spec,vP) does not violate Shortest Move (cf. Legate 2008). Yanagida and Whitman (2009) hypothesize that the head that attracts the object to the left of the subject is Aspect. Support for this view comes from Washio’s (2004) analysis of OJ aspect selection. Washio shows that the distribution of the two OJ perfective auxiliaries, tu and nu, is sensitive to the transitivity of VP. On this analysis, OJ transitive sentences have the following structure: (18)

(=15b)

AspP

DP0 [uCase] kimi wo lord wo DPerg [uCase] a ga 1sa tkimi

Asp' vP v'

Asp [EPP] [uϕ] v

VP

[uϕ] V omopu long.for

‘I long for my lord’ 10 This order is crosslinguistically rare. Whitman (2008) observes that Haspelmath et al. (2005) identify four OSV languages in their typological database. The OSV status of two of these, Warao and Tobati, is disputed. The other two, Nadëb and Wik Ngathana, are identified in the literature as ergative. It is therefore possible that there is a correlation between OSV order and non-accusative alignment.

192

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida

It is somewhat more difficult to establish whether T bears an EPP feature at this period. If it does, the ga-marked subject must check the EPP feature of T in intransitive nominalized clauses, and the wo-marked object must check this feature in transitive clauses, to maintain OSV order.11 10.4.5 Change from active to accusative Harris and Campbell (1995: 258) describe as a possible but hypothetical change a shift from active to accusative alignment caused by reanalyis of an active case marker as nominative. Klimov (1974, 1977) also suggests that active > accusative is a widespread development. But these suggestions are speculative: previous literature has not attested the change active > accusative within the textually documented history of a single language. However over the course of about 800 years, the shift from active to accusative is exactly what happens in Japanese. The change is not a one-step process. The steps in the development of accusative alignment by the end of Late Middle Japanese (sixteenth century) seem to have been the following: attrition of gamarked transitive subjects, expansion of no-marked transitive subjects, emergence of wo as a structural case marker, limitation of ga to intransitive clauses, and finally, establishment of nominative ga. In the transition from OJ to Early Middle Japanese (ninth century), the pronominal system undergoes major changes. In particular, the monosyllabic deficient personal pronouns wa ‘I’, na ‘thou’, ta ‘who’, and si ‘s/he’ are lost in EMJ, except in frozen expressions where wa serves as a possessor. As we noted in 10.3.2, these pronouns are always marked with active ga in OJ when they serve as subjects, so their loss results in a signficant reduction in the quantity of ga-marked external arguments encountered by the language learner. Already in OJ, [  human] and nonspecific subjects in nominalized clauses occur marked with genitive no in SOV order: (19)

a. parusame no yokure-do ware wo nuras-aku (MY 1697) spring rain gen avoid-although I wo drench-nom ‘(that) the spring rain, however (I) try to avoid it, drenches me’ b. Soko mo ka pito no wa wo koto nas-am-u? (MY 512, 1329,1376) That too q people gen I wo things say-will-adn ‘Will people say that of me too?’

11 As observed by Yanagida and Whitman (2009), OSV order in OJ nominalized clauses parallels what Gildea (1998: 190–6, 2000: 85–8) calls the ‘AV ergative’ system in Cariban languages, originally referred to as ‘De-ergative’ by Franchetto (1990). In this system, the agent remains within VP, while the object appears outside the VP. The De-ergative system in Kuikúro is sensitive to the nominal hierarchy, according to Franchetto (1990), suggesting that it is ergative. Yanagida and Whitman show that the basic properties of this structure are parallel to the active properties of OJ nominalized clauses.

The formal syntax of alignment change

193

This pattern is rare in OJ, but it becomes widespread in kunten glossed texts in EMJ. The following examples are taken from the Konkômyô Saishô Ôkyô ‘The Sutra of Golden Light’ (kunten text ca. 830; interpretations are based on Kasuga 1969). (20)

a. Yoki wotoko yoki womina no . . . sinkyau no kokoro wo nasamu (K 3–5:46) good men good woman gen reverent gen mind wo produce ‘(that) good men and good women . . . might produce a reverent mind’ b. Yoki wotoko yoki womina no . . . Sanzyou dou wo syusemu (K 3–5:50) good man good woman gen Triyāna way wo practice ‘(that) good men and good women might master the Triyāna doctrine’

The combined effect of more S no O V data and less—ultimately no—O Spronoun ga V data was to make ga increasingly infrequent in transitive contexts. At the same time, not only S no O wo V but also [e] O wo V data occurred, where [e] was pro or the trace of A’ extraction such as relativization. The result of these changes in the input was reanalysis of wo as a structural accusative case marker. Further evidence of this reanalysis is the disappearance of PP þ wo examples like (16) during EMJ. The reanalysis of wo as a structural case marker had far-reaching consequences. Under the framework outlined in 10.2, structural accusative case assigned by v is incompatible with the [SpecCASE] feature in v responsible for assignment of inherent active case to the external argument. The first consequence of this change seems to have been the disappearance of ga as marker of the external argument in transitive clauses in Late Middle Japanese (LMJ). Yamada (2000) examines the increase in the frequency of ga by comparing the oldest manuscript versions of the Tale of Heike, which are believed to reflect fourteenth century LMJ, with the romanized text of Heike (the Amakusa Heike) published by Jesuit missionaries in 1592. Yamada observes that the frequency of ga increases in the Amakusa Heike, but that it is more frequent with the subjects of intransitive predicates. At this period, we may hypothesize that the [SpecCASE] feature has been lost in transitive v, leading transitive clauses to appear with wo as the spellout of structural accusative case and without inherent ga marking on their external argument. At around the same time, the highest frequency nominalized clause type, the adnominal, supplants the conclusive pattern of OJ and EMJ in root as well as subordinate clauses. That is, the pattern that showed active alignment in earlier Japanese supplants the earlier accusative pattern, at exactly the period when wo (originally a marker of specificity) is reanalyzed as a structural accusative and inherent ga disappears. Yamada finds ga in all types of intransitives in sixteenth century LMJ, both unergatives and unacusatives. This indicates that ga is no longer sensitive to the thematic role of the subject; that is ga has ceased to be an inherent case. By the seventeenth century, ga reappears in transitive clauses, with subjects of all types, as indicated by data like the following:

194 (21)

John Whitman and Yuko Yanagida ano mono ga orusu wo itas-eba (Kyôgen Busu, Toraakira-bon 1647) that person nom watch.house acc do-if ‘if that person watches over the house’

By this period, conclusive and adnominal clause ending have completely merged in favour of the latter; that is, the adnominal endings have been reanalyzed as matrix clause endings. As a consequence, the syntax of adnominal clauses, which has changed from active to nominative with overt structural case markers, becomes the alignment pattern of main clauses in Japanese. We can summarize the changes outlined above as follows: (22)

Active > accusative in Japanese a. Decrease in ga-marked pronouns, increase in no-marked transitive subjects. Consequence: loss of evidence for case-checking movement of object. b. Wo reanalysed as structural accusative Consequence: inherent ga restricted to intransitive clauses. c. Ga licensed by T, adnominal reanalyzed as matrix. Consequence: accusative alignment in main clauses.

Under this analysis, the loss of active alignment in OJ nominalized clauses is triggered by independent developments, much as the reanalysis of the copula as auxiliary in Iranian participle constructions triggers the change to ergative alignment. In Middle Japanese, attrition of active subjects in transitives led to the reanalysis of wo as a structural case marker. This in turn led to limitation of inherent ga to intransitive clauses, and eventually its reanalysis as a structural nominative.

10.5 Conclusion In developing the account of alignment change in this chapter, we have focused on a fairly small number of parametric changes. Chief among them are changes affecting [SpecCASE], the feature responsible for assignment of inherent case to external arguments in situ. Related parametric changes in non-accusative languages have to do with the mechanisms for case licensing on objects. In the course of our discussion, we have provided support from formal syntax for three claims made in the earlier historical/typological literature: that possessive þ participle constructions can be a source for tense-sensitive ergative alignment; that passive is not a plausible source for ergative alignment; and that active alignment can be reanalyzed as accusative.

The formal syntax of alignment change

195

Texts (Japanese Primary Sources) Kasuga, Masaji. 1969. Konkomyô Saishô Ôkyô Koten no Kokugogakuteki Kenkyû. Tokyo: Benseisha. Kojima, Noriyuki; Kinosita, Masatake; and Tôno, Haruyuki. 1995. Man’yôshû (1–4), Nihon Koten Bungaku Zenshû. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Nakanishi, Susumu. 1978–1983. Man’yôshû. Tokyo: Kôdansha Bunko, (reprinted in 1978–2005). Satake, Asahiro, Kudô, Rikio, Ohtani, Masao and Yamazaki Yoshiyuki. 2002. Man’yôshû Shin Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei (1–4). Tokyo: Iwanami.

Electronic Texts Japanese Text Initiative Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library (http://etext.lib. virginia.edu/japanese/jti.texts.euc.html) Yoshimura, Makoto, Yamaguchi University (http://infux03.inf.edu.yamaguchi-u.ac.jp/s38/ noumi/manyou.php).

11 The diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle ELLIOTT LASH

11.1 Introduction The history of the Modern Irish particle particle ná ‘than’ can be traced from the earliest prose examples of Irish (circa eighth century) until the present day and therefore, the history of this particle is particularly instructive as a case study in syntactic reanalysis and grammaticalization. The Modern Irish particle ná ‘than’ is a phonologically reduced and syntactically reanalyzed form of the Old Irish sequence ol daäs ‘beyond how is’. The difference between the two comparative markers can be observed by contrasting the Old Irish example (1) with the Modern Irish equivalent (2). (1) Is dochu indala n-ái [ol OP daäs anaill]. cop.3s.prs likely.comp the.one of.them beyond (how) (NAS)be.3s.prs.rel other ‘One of them is more likely than how the other is.’ (Wb. 4b24) (2)

Tá an ceann seo níos fearr Be.3s.prs the one this more better ‘This one is better than the other one.’

[ná than

an ceann eile]. the one other

In Old Irish, the verb is obligatorily present in the comparative clause and the comparative marker is the preposition ol ‘beyond’. The verb in this sequence is marked as relative (a fact which I will return to below) and is a form of the locational/existential copula atá. It has the full range of verbal tenses, moods, and person/number inflections. In Modern Irish, in contrast, a verb is not necessary and the marker of comparison is the particle ná. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide an account of the observed change from verb to particle. In order to do so, it will be necessary to use the methods of internal reconstruction within the realm of syntactic change. In particular, I will examine various discrepancies involving the syntax of the comparative marker in

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

197

Old Irish and posit changes in pre-Old Irish1 in order to account for these discrepancies. Specifically, I claim that the initial and fundamental change was a prehistorical change from V to C, as found in many languages in various contexts (Heine and Kuteva 2002). The textual evidence2 also shows many morphological and syntactic extensions as well as one possible subsequent syntactic reanalysis from C to P. These reanalyses, with their associated extensions, were long-term developments, which took place over approximately six hundred years, and are partly obscured by the archaizing or ‘conservative’ tendency of the scribes of Irish manuscripts. This chapter is an attempt to apply the minimalist theory of grammaticalization formulated in Roberts and Roussou (2003) to a new set of data. They argue that the formal correlate of grammaticalization is upwards reanalysis of some feature (along the clausal spine) associated with parameter change, i.e. grammaticalization is ‘reanalysis [that] gives rise to a new exponent for a higher functional head X’ (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 200). They characterize parameter change in terms of the realization of features on a given functional head. The idea is that a formal feature may or may not be realized at PF. If a feature is realized at PF they use the diacritic *. Another way that features can vary is if they are satisfied via Merge or Move (or Agree) or some combination of these. Finally, they argue that there is a hierarchy of parameters settings for a given feature F, organized according to markedness, where markedness is defined in terms of Longobardi’s simplicity metric involving feature syncretisms (3). (3)

A structural representation R for a substring of input text S is simpler than an alternative representation R’ iff R contains fewer formal feature syncretism than R’ (Longobardi 2001: 294)

1 For the purposes of this chapter I will use the term pre-Old Irish to refer to the time period before the earliest manuscripts of the eighth century. There is, of course, no definite time in which pre-Old Irish became Old Irish. 2 The texts and manuscripts used in the corpus, along with their dates and abbreviations (if used as a source of examples) are: Würzburg Glosses (eighth century, Wb), Milan Glosses (ninth century, Ml.), Tógail Bruidne Dá Derga (tenth century), Fingal Rónáin (tenth century), Bethu Brigte (tenth century), Triparite Life of Patrick (possibly tenth century), Orgain Denna Ríg (tenth century ODR), Liber Hymnorum Prefaces (eleventh century), LU Táin (eleventh century), Aislinge Meic Conglinne (eleventh century AMC), LL Táin (twelfth century), Acallam na Senórach (late twelfth century), Acallam Bec (thirteenth century), Annals of Ulster (1200–1540), Marc Polo (post 1320), Astronomical Tract (fifteenth century), Life of Beavis of Hampton (late fifteenth century), Travels of John of Maundeville (fifteenth century), Stair Ercuil ocus a bás (fifteenth century), Life of Guy of Warwick (fifteenth century), Stair Fortibrais (fifteenth century), Desiderius (sixteenth century). Examples were also taken from the following texts: The Lambeth Commentary (seventh century, Lambeth Comm.), and the Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill (seventeenth century, BAR) and the LU Fled Bricrend (before twelfth century). Finally, the Dictionary of the Irish Language (DIL) is used as a reference for certain examples/phenomena.

198

Elliott Lash

Parameter settings tend to move from most marked to least marked. Therefore, as some element grammaticalizes, the structure associated with it will become simpler. As an example, consider the change of English modals from verbs in T to exponents of T. In Roberts and Roussou’s terms, this is described as a change in parameter setting T*move (triggering V to T movement), to the setting T*merge (whereby the element in T is analyzed as a T element exclusively). Since moving an element into a new position requires that there be a feature licensing it in its merged position and one triggering movement, then movement is featurally more complex (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 210). Hence, the grammaticalization of modals as T elements moves from marked to less marked. I will return to these ideas in the discussion of the Irish comparative marker. In section 11.2, the earliest textual evidence of the comparative construction is discussed. Furthermore, reasons are given as to why one must view the sequence ol daäs in Old Irish as instantiating ‘relic grammar’, and hence open to the methods of internal reconstruction. In section 11.3, an analysis of the possible earlier state of affairs that underlies this sequence is provided. In section 11.4, the reanalysis leading up to the historically attested forms is discussed and related back to the above discussion of grammaticalization. Then, in section 11.5, I discuss a second reanalysis that is problematic for the approach to grammaticalization discussed above. I term this the second reanalysis. I will describe and motivate some extensions of the second reanalysis in section 11.6. Finally section 11.7 will briefly conclude this chapter.

11.2 Eighth century Old Irish data First, some preliminary structural issues need to be resolved. I have mentioned above that comparative clauses are introduced by the preposition ol. This is then followed, at least at a superficial descriptive level, by a verbal form. This is a form of the verb a-tá ‘to be’, the root of which is -tá-. In one of the earliest Old Irish texts in a contemporary manuscript, the eighth century Würzburg Glosses (Wb.), the form of the verb varies for person and tense. Over time, these features are gradually lost from this element. Another important point to note is that the verb is inflected with special relative morphology, showing up as the suffix -as in the third singular present tense. This is unsurprising, since, as we know from the literature on comparatives beginning with Chomsky (1977), these constructions tend to have all the hallmarks of a wh-dependency. As it turns out, the wh-nature of the comparative construction in Old Irish is doubly marked. In particular, another characteristic of the construction is that the initial consonant of the verb has undergone consonant mutation. Consonant mutation plays a large role in Old Irish (as it does in Modern Irish, see Duffield 1995, McCloskey 2009) in expressing various syntactic relations among which is the function of an antecedent in wh-constructions. The mutation found in comparative

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

199

clauses is termed ‘nasalization’ in the philological literature (see Ahlqvist 1983, 1985, Breatnach 1980, McCone 1980, and Ó hUiginn 1986, 1987). In Old Irish, nasalization was a morphophonological operation that voiced unvoiced stops and changed voiced stops into the corresponding nasal. (4) shows that the initial /t/ of tá- ‘be’ has been voiced to /d/ and (5) shows that the initial /b/ of the past tense boí was nasalized to /m/ (spelled ). A vowel- initial verb just adds /n/, as (6) below shows. (4)

(5)

Ba ferr ol daas cop.3s.pst better beyond (nas)be.3s.rel ‘It would be better than avenging it.’

a its

dígal. avenging (Wb. 9c21)

Ba deidbiriu dún ni immormus ol mbói do som. cop.3s.pst proper.comp for.1p us sinning beyond (NAS)be.3s.pst for.3s him ‘It was more proper for us to sin than it was for him.’ (Wb. 9c10)

The nasalization in comparative clauses is comparable to cases in which the verb is nasalized in the presence of some sort of adverbial extraction. The adverbial antecedent type that is most relevant for the current discussion consists of those antecedents that designate manner/extent. For example, in the following sentence (6), méit ‘extent’ denotes extent. In both comparative clauses (4), (5) and in the sentence in (6), the verb in the wh-clause is clearly nasalized.3 (6)

Is sí méit insin do n-indnagar in cop.3s.prs 3sf. extent that pv nas-bestow.3s.prs.pass the ‘That is the extent to which consolation is bestowed.’

díthnad. consolation (Wb. 14b15)

The marking of verbs in the presence of extracted elements is fairly widespread in languages (for example, Chamorro Wh-Agreement as discussed in Chung 1994, 1998). For Irish, a plausible account is to think that consonant mutation is the reflex at PF of the presence of an operator in the specifier of CP, specifically the PF expression of an Agree relation (Chomsky 2000) between the wh-complementiser and the operator. This is because the mutation appears on the initial phonological segment of whatever element is linearly to the right of any complementizer particle. As a first approximation then, I propose that the structure of the comparative clause in Old Irish at the time of Würzburg Glosses is (7). I will revise this structure immediately below where further data is taken into account. (7)

[PP ol [CP [OPi] [C þ wh ] [TP NAS-ta þ wh(  as) . . . ti ] ] ]

(7) summarizes the features discussed above. It shows the original preposition ol; an adverbial operator, which agrees with C þ wh and moves to its specifier; the

3

I follow Newton (2006) in assuming that preverbs, PV in (6) are in C.

200

Elliott Lash

nasalization on the element immediately following the operator; and finally whmarking on the verb.

11.3 A prehistory of the comparative In this section, we will see that, despite its initial appearances, the structure in (7) is in fact not appropriate for earliest historically attested Old Irish, but rather represents an earlier structure. There are three arguments to be made here. First, the preposition ol is very rare outside of this construction and seems to be obsolescent in the Old Irish period before nouns, being frequently replaced by the preposition dar ‘beyond’ before such elements. Furthermore, even when it is found in these contexts, al (DIL al A.281) is the more normal form. Moreover, from the ninth-century Milan Glosses onward, an alternative construction with the overt adverbial element in(d) (an adverbial dative form of the definite article) instead of ol is attested. The obsolescence of ol both in comparative and non-comparative contexts, and the appearance of in(d) in comparative contexts, make it likely that ol is a relic of the original construction that was undergoing gradual replacement in the historical period. Second, the verb form daäs itself is very rare outside of this construction in the historical period. Instead, suppletive forms are used in operator contexts generally. Ó hUiginn (1987) mentions only three examples, (8) to (10), with a form of (a)-tá in other constructions,4 and says that these are vestiges of an earlier system. Contrast (10) showing the putative older system, with (11) which shows the more common system in Old (and Middle Irish), with the suppletive past tense form ro-nd-gab ‘took’ acting as a present tense form of ‘be’ in nasalizing contexts. (8)

Is midlachda OP no taí.5 cop.3s.prs cowardly (how) pv be.2s.prs ‘How you are is cowardly.’

(LU, Fled Bricrend 8776)

(9)

Is dicheill OP no taí frim. cop.3s.prs unreasonable (how) pv be.2s.prs to.1s ‘How you are is unreasonable towards me.’ (Ériu xii 178 §9) (10) amal daäs dechur fochricce la Día like (nas)be.3s.prs.rel difference.nom rewards.gen with God.acc ‘like/as there is a difference of rewards with God . . . ’ (Lambeth Comm. 399)

4 There is another verb tá- ‘be angry, vex, ail’, also found in nasalizing operator contexts, which has been confused with this verb in the philological literature, however Schumacher (2004) has argued for a new etymology completely separating it from (a)-tá ‘be’. 5 Nasalization (i.e. voicing) of /t/ is not usually marked orthographically.

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle (11)

201

amal rondgab dechur fochricce la Día . . . since be.3s.prs.rel difference.nom rewards.gen with God.acc ‘like/as there is a difference of rewards with God . . . ’ (Lambeth Comm. 390)

Since the form daäs is essentially found in the comparative construction only, whereas in all other instances there is a suppletive form, we can assume that the suppletive forms are spreading at the expense of the form daäs. In the comparative construction, daäs has been in a sense ‘frozen’ and is not susceptible to this spread. Below, I will introduce a formal explanation for this ‘frozen’ or ‘relic’ behaviour. The third reason for suspecting that (7) does not represent the structure of the comparative in the synchronic grammar of the eighth and ninth-century historical texts is that the verb in this construction does not exhibit one crucial characteristic of wh-marked forms. Usually, first and second person verb forms in wh-constructions undergo the morphological process of no-insertion. The sample paradigm of beirid ‘carry’ in (12) illustrates this. Examples (8) and (9), above, show no-insertion, in context.6 (12) 1st 2nd 3rd

Non-wh-forms

Wh-forms

SG biru biri beirid

SG no-biur no-bir beires

PL bermai beirthe berait

PL no-beram no-beirid bertae

Since (12) shows that no-insertion happens in first and second person verb forms, it is surprising that it does not happen with the verb (a)-tá in the comparative construction. The forms of this verb found in this construction are given in (13). (13) 1st 2nd 3rd

SG PL ol daú/dó –7 ol daí – ol daäs ol datae

In other words, given the paradigm in (14) and (15), the paradigm in (16) and (17) is expected, in which daäs behaves like any other verb.8 Given that (16) and (17) are not found, I conclude that the structure in (7) is not appropriate for the synchronic grammar of Old Irish.

6

The change in endings in the first and second person is not relevant—any time a proclitic particle is added to the verb, a different set of endings known as ‘conjunct’ are used. The endings of the third person on the other hand are specific to wh-constructions. 7 Thurneysen (1946) gives the forms ol-dammit and ol-dathe, but these may be later forms. 8 Examples (14)–(17) are not found in the texts, they are constructed for the argument in the body of the text.

202

Elliott Lash

(14)

intan no n-ailim when pv nas-nourish.1s.pr ‘when I nourish . . . ’

(15)

intan n-ailes when nas-nourish.3s.prs.rel ‘when he nourishes . . . ’

(16)

*ol no dó/daú beyond pv (nas)-be.1s.prs ‘beyond how I am . . . ’

(17)

ol daäs beyond be.3s.prs.rel ‘beyond how he is . . . ’

In Ahlqvist (1985), no-insertion is mentioned as a possible late development. This seems confirmed by some examples of archaic poetry mentioned in Thurneysen (1946: 493) where no-insertion does not apply. For example, (18) shows saigthe and not the expected no-saigthe, the form used in wh-constructions like relative clauses. (18)

ata saidbri saigthe cop.3p.prs.rel riches seek.2p.prs ‘whose riches they are that you seek . . . ’

Thus, because of the above concerns, the gradual obsolescence of ol outside of the comparative construction, the gradual replacement of daäs outside of this construction, and the lack of no-insertion, there is some reason to think some reanalysis had affected this construction. Specifically, I propose that daäs (and any other form in this construction) should no longer be analyzed as a verb by the time of the Old Irish Glosses (eighth and ninth centuries). At some point prior to the earliest Old Irish texts, the structure in (7) was replaced and the sequence ol daäs was frozen or grammaticalized.

11.4 The first reanalysis: V to C The reanalysis of daäs in the comparative construction had to have occurred before no-insertion was innovated in relative clauses, and before the shift to suppletive relative verbal forms for the verb (a)-tá, because otherwise we would expect that these processes should also apply to daäs in comparative clauses. The reanalysis seems to have been from V to C, as argued below. The question is, how could such a reanalysis have come about and why did it not target other instances of daäs, like the one found in (10)? In this context daäs must have been fully verbal since it was replaced with suppletive relative forms as in (11).

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

203

In answer to this question, I suggest first that the comparative context differed from other contexts in which daäs was used because in this context an analysis involving gapping may have been possible, whereas in other contexts this analysis was impossible. Thus, the sentence in (19), could have both of the analyses in (20). (19)

ol OP daäs beyond (how) be.3s.prs.rel ‘than the man (is) . . . ’

(20)

(a) [PP (b) [PP

ol ol

[CP [OPi] [CP [OPi]

in the

fer man

[C þ wh ] [C daas]

[TP [T NAS-taas] . . . ti ] ] ] [TP [T . . . ti ] ] ] ]

The possibility of both of these analyses is due to the fact that Old Irish clearly allowed for tense and person agreement to appear in C as well as in T (which is to be expected following Chomsky 2008). A clear instance of this is the third singular form of the copula, which patterns with complementizers in hosting object clitics, as in (21) and (22).9 (21)

(22)

Iss um écen cop.3s.prf me necessary ‘I need to teach.’

precept. teaching

co te n-ibha that it nas-drink.3s.prs.sbj ‘so that he may drink it . . . ’

(Wb. 10d24)

(Heldensage 51.3)

For the gapping analysis to be posited, daäs would have to have been sufficiently unstressed to become cliticized to ol, as only weakly or non-stressed items appeared in the particle (or C) position (see the discussions in Watkins 1963 and Koch 1987). Such phonological and prosodic correlates to grammaticalization are fairly commonly posited in the literature, although there is no direct evidence of such a stress shift in Old Irish, merely because of the type of corpus available. However, with the above caveat, I assume that such cliticization occurred. Why then should other instances of daäs not allow a gapping analysis and therefore not allow cliticization with subsequent grammaticalization to C? The answer here is simply that in other contexts, gapping would never be possible because the gapped element would not have been recoverable at LF. Consider again example (10), with its full context, repeated here as (23).

9 There is further evidence that the copula is in C in Old Irish. Such evidence comes from the interpretation of null subjects with the copula, copula and complementizer allomorphy, the positioning of wh-induced consonsant mutation relative to the copula, and various details of identificational sentences. For examples of these, see Lash (2011).

204 (23)

Elliott Lash amal daäs dechur fochricce la Día like/as (nas)be.3s.prs.rel difference.nom rewards.gen with God.acc like/as there is a different set of rewards with God . . . ’ (Lambeth Comm. 399)

In the text, this sentence is is completed with the phrase given in (24), such that the translation of the whole is the sentence given in (25). (24)

(25)

atá dechur pían. be.3s.prs difference torments.gen ‘There is a difference of torments.’

(Lambeth Comm. 399)

‘Just like there is a difference of rewards with God, there is a difference of torments.’

Gapping the verb from the first clause of (25) would result in a very different interpretation, given in (26), where the most natural interpretation would be to interpret amal as ‘similar to’. (26) ‘Just like (¼ similar to) a difference of rewards with God, there is a difference of torment.’ Additionally, much of the time, amal means not ‘as, like’ but ‘as if, as though’, which likely would act similarly to these complementizers/conjunctions in English in not allowing gapping. Moreover, none of the other elements that are found with the nasalizing wh-construction, namely lasse ‘while’, céin ‘however long as’, in tain ‘when’ (among others) are compatible with a gapping analysis. This leaves only ol daäs susceptible to such an analysis. In connection with Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) proposal that grammaticalization is upwards reanalysis due to parameter resetting, I take the view that the change from V (in T) to C is a shift in the parameter setting of C. More specifically, I propose that the change was a shift from C[tense]*agree to C[tense]*merge. This essentially means that the realization of the tense feature shifted from being fulfilled via an agreement relationship to being fulfilled via merge of a tense element in C. Finally, note that this reanalysis is not obviously because of previous morphological change which is claimed to be the usual cause of ambiguity (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 204). Rather, reanalysis is merely due to purely structural ambiguity. This is similar to the case of the grammaticalization of Greek and English complementizers pou and that respectively, which involves ambiguity in relative clauses (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 196). However, this does not seem to be the entire story. Recall the descriptive observation given above (20), (21) that the third singular form of the copula appears to pattern like complementizers, although it is historically a verb. I take this to mean that the copula was reanalyzed from V to C at some point in the pre-history of Old

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

205

Irish. This must have occurred before daäs underwent this same change, given the facts of wh-consonant mutation in copula clauses as compared to daäs. In copula clauses, when there is a wh-operator, the copula itself does not undergo nasalization. Instead, the non-verbal predicate undergoes this mutation, as we see in (27). Thus, it seems as though mutation effects the constituent immediately after the complementizer, at PF, whatever that constituent might be. Since daäs has obviously undergone the mutation, there must have been a time when daäs was in a position to the right of the complementizer position at PF. (27)

céin bas mbéo in fer however.long cop.3s.fut.rel (nas).alive the man ‘however long that the man will be alive . . . ’

(Wb. 10b23)

I take the innovation of the copula as an instantiation of C (at some point in the pre-Old Irish period) to be a consequence of the parameter shift discussed above: C[tense]*agree to C[tense]*merge. That daäs could then be analyzed as a clitic to ol, and thus also be merged in C, is, on this view, a later extension of this first parameter change which allowed tense to be merged high.10 The following is a summary of the first reanalysis and its consequences: (28)

a. Copula reanalyzed as C (parameter shift: C[tense]*agree to C[tense]*merge). b. In gapping contexts, daäs can be analyzed as C, because of the previous reanalysis allowing tense to be merged high. c. daäs in C becomes enclitic to the preposition ol. d. When no-insertion and suppletion are innovated, daäs in C does not participate in the changes, since these processes only affect elements of the category V.

It is often said that there are various hallmarks of grammaticalization, among which are category changes, semantic bleaching and phonological reduction, and non-systematicity. The grammaticalization of daäs as an exponent of C can be seen to conform to all of these. First, it is obviously a category change from V (in T) to C. Second, the verbal meaning of ‘existence’ is bleached and instead it becomes comparative marker. Third, it is cliticized to ol, and therefore possibly unstressed. Additionally, the evidence from later Irish shows that the hiatus was reduced to a long vowel (recall the form of the modern Irish particle ná). Fourth, the grammaticalization did not affect all instances of daäs (leaving some to be affected by no-insertion or suppletion), only those in the relevant gapping context.

10 I assume that tense is usually only merged high in sentences without a lexical verb to host tense in T. However, this is not crucial to the argument at hand.

206

Elliott Lash

11.5 The second reanalysis: C to P After the prehistoric first reanalysis, the comparative marker underwent a second reanalysis early in the history of Irish. There is evidence from surface extensions that the reanalysis occurred between the early eighth and the middle of the ninth century. This is because there is a difference in the syntax of the comparative marker between the eighth-century Würzburg Glosses and certain examples from the mid-ninthcentury Milan Glosses. After the second reanalysis, the comparative marker loses tense, allows nonnominative case marking of the subject of the comparative clause, and shows analogical morphological change. These changes combined, all of which will be exemplified below, contributed to a system in which the comparative marker patterns almost like prepositions in the language. I thus will argue in this section that they are extensions consistent with a C to P reanalysis of the comparative marker. This reanalysis arose for two reasons. First, because of the cliticization of daäs to the preposition ol, a complex phonological unit consisting of P-C was presented to learners of Old Irish. The second and crucial reason that the reanalysis occurred is complex and involves the formation of subcomparative sentences (for which see Corver 2005) in pre-Old Irish. In such contexts pre-Old Irish appears to have had two clauses: the normal comparative CP and then a second CP with the nominal or adjectival element. Example (29) gives an instance of a subcomparative clause in the glosses, with (30) its Latin counterpart. Note here that I am claiming that despite the appearance of two clauses, because of the two different verbal elements with different argument structure, there is in the historical period only one clause. Presumably though, this structure arose from some pre-Old Irish structure in which both verbal elements were actually in different clauses. (29)

(Is mó ata)11 forcitlidi ol daas cop.3s.prs more cop.3p.prs.rel teachers beyond be.3s.prs.rel ata ndiglaidi cop.3p.prs.rel (nas).avengers ‘They are more teachers than they are avengers.’ (Ml. 111c7,8)

(30)

Postremo [ipsa suplicia mansuetudinis nomine eruditoria putius after these prayers gentleness.gen name.abl teachers more quam ultoria fuisse] laetatus est. than avengers be.prf.inf rejoiced be.3s.prs ‘Afterwards, he rejoiced that these gentle prayers in [God’s] name were teachers rather than avengers.’ (Ml. Psalm 89, 111c)

11 The words in parentheses have been added, on the basis of the Latin, in order to provide a context for the glosses.

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

207

Pre-Old Irish subcomparatives seem to have been formed by merging a CP with the VP containing the verb -tá. It is likely that this is because subcomparatives always contain an overt standard of comparison, which is an NP or an AP. Since -tá could not select NP or AP (it is essentially a verb of locational or adverbial predication), another means of embedding these categories must have been available, hence the CP, headed by the copula, which did select NP or AP. Subordinate non-wh-CPs may be introduced by nasalization in Old Irish according to Thurneysen (1946: 503), hence the nasalization on the predicative nominal diglaidi in (29). Thus, we can analyze this as (31), at least in the pre-Old Irish period (that is, in the period before daäs became C as an extension of the parameter change allowing overt manifestation of tense in C). (31)

[PP ol [CP [OP] C [TP [T NAS-taas] [VP . . . [CP [C ata] [NAS-diglaidi]]]]]]

After daäs was grammaticalized as C and cliticized (at PF) to P, creating the complex P-C ol-daäs, the structure was as in (32). The PF realization of this complex structure would have been (33). (32)

[PP ol [CP OP [C daäs] [TP . . . . [CP [C ata [(NAS)diglaidi]]]]]]

(33)

ol-daäs ata NAS-diglaidi.

Finally, because of the cliticization of daäs and the fact nasalization is ambiguous between merely indicating a complement clause and indicating the presence of an operator in Spec,CP, (32) was potentially ambiguous. In one reading, there were the two clauses of pre-Old Irish. On the other, ‘gapped’ reading (made possible through extention of daäs to C), there was only one clause with the nasalization indicating operator extraction. Reanalyzing the complement nasalization as operator induced nasalization entails that the original nasalization on daäs would become, in a sense, unneeded. Hence, it became merely part of the phonological makeup of the new comparative marker oldaas, thus, not part of its morphosyntax at all. This analysis is shown in (34). (34)

[PP oldaas [CP [OP ] [C ata] [ NAS-diglaidi]]]

In terms of Roberts and Roussou (2003), this is not in fact grammaticalization, since it does not entail the realization of features of some item higher in the clausal spine than in the original analysis. Furthermore, the change is from a purely functional C element to a P element, which is arguably less functional. However, given that daäs was putatively cliticized to P, and P allowed agreement features in Old Irish (as in Modern Irish), the addition of an agreeing form to a P was allowed by the system, even if it cannot be viewed as strictly grammaticalization in the formal sense. Finally, there is no parametric change here: the tense features of C are still

208

Elliott Lash

realized directly by merger of a copula form in C. Having said this, there does seem to be some structural change, or at least the possibility of a new structure. Since the comparative marker is now a PP, it could appear with both full clauses as well as with nominals, whereas previously as a C element, the structure associated with it could only be CP. The two possible structures are shown in (35). (35)

a. [PP b. [PP

[P oldaäs] [CP OP [C copula] [TP . . . ]]] [P oldaäs] [DP]]

Thus there seems to be a distinction that can be made between morphology created from former syntax via upwards reanalysis together with parameter change and morphology created from former syntax that is a result of extension (by analogy) in certain contexts, without parameter change. Only the former is grammaticalization. The latter is merely a type of syntactic extension, and may in fact include degrammaticalization.12 As a final note before proceeding to the next section, recall that in place of ol-daäs, there is, from the ninth century onward, an alternative indaäs, involving a dative form of the article ind þ the erstwhile verb form. I assume that the formation of indaäs is entirely parallel with the formation of oldaäs. In particular, I assume that daäs became enclitic to ind and then became part of ind, especially in subcomparative contexts. The only additional statement that must be made is that the complex form indaäs was then likely analyzed as a preposition by analogy with oldaäs.

11.6 Consequences of the second reanalysis After the second reanalysis discussed above, it is expected that various extensions may occur. As mentioned above, such extensions are attested in the ninth-century Milan Glosses. To reiterate these, they include sporadic non-nominative case marking on the noun following oldaäs, analogical morphological change affecting the old third singular relative ending -as, which is not needed because P does not express þ wh in Irish, and finally the loss of tense marking, since prepositions do not inflect for tense. An example of the non-nominative case marking on what would have been the subject of the comparative clause is found in (36). This example is similar to the English use of than me instead of than I, because the original subject of the comparative clause has dative marking. Note that prepositions agree in person and

12 Roberts and Roussou (2003: 208, note 2) mention the specific case of Greek midhen ‘zero’, which is a lexical item created from a quantifier. Interestingly with this item, two morphemes were reanalyzed as one. This is comparable to ol þ daäs becoming oldaäs.

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

209

number with the nominal in their complement (which is normally a pro), hence the old verbal morphology has been reused as prepositional agreement marking. (36)

Huilliu ad cumnet indatae Better pv wound.3p.prs than.3p ‘They wound better than swords.’

chlaidib. swords.dat (Ml. 77a1)

Reusing the old verbal morphology as new prepositional agreement, an instance of exaptation, also led to certain analogical morphological changes in order to have make the comparative marker look more like other prepositions. One major change was the loss of the original wh-relative form in the third singular, i.e. the loss of the suffix -as in certain contexts. This change is understandable when we compare forms oldaäs/indaäs with the forms of other prepositions. Irish prepositions could (and can) be inflected to agree with their complement (see McCloskey and Hale 1984). For example, consider the forms of the comparative marker and the preposition fri ‘against, to, with’, given in (37). (37)

fri SG 1st fri-m 2nd fri-t 3rd fri-s (M), fri-e (F)

PL fri-nn fri-b fri-u

olda-/indaSG olda-ú olda-í olda-as

PL – – olda-tae / olda-it

(37) shows that the masculine third singular form of the preposition fri was fri-s. I claim that, by a simple analogy, the old relative ending -as was reanalyzed as the same -s found in fri (and several prepositions, including a ‘from’ and la ‘with’, among others). After this morphological reanalysis, olda and inda could be used in environments that would not call for the agreement form, namely when the comparative marker did not directly select a pronoun or nominal. Two examples of such morphological change are given in (38) and (39). In these examples, the comparative particle selects a full clause and not a DP—hence no agree relationship is set up and thus the non-agreeing form is chosen. The former -as suffix has been reanalyzed as a form of the copula. (38)

(39)

inda OP as than (how) cop.3s.prs.rel ‘than how that is fruitful . . . ’

toirthech són.13 nas-fruitful that

olda OP as n-ermitnigthi than (how) cop.3s.prs.rel nas-honour.ger ‘than how it is to be honoured by honour . . . ’

(Ml. 84a3) feid honour.dat (Ml. 137d1)

13 Again, it should be noted that wh-nasalization is not shown orthographically when the initial consonant following the nasalizing C is voiceless underlyingly. However, phonologically toirthech would have been /dorjujex/.

210

Elliott Lash

The morphological analogy discussed above seems to have been gradual in the texts, with forms in final -as found together with forms with no final -as throughout the Old and Middle Irish period. It is not until the fifteenth century that final -as becomes very rare in the textual record. There appear to be various different reasons for the loss of this suffix, and as these occur throughout Middle Irish and into early Modern Irish, I will briefly discuss these further in the following section. It should be noted that the form inda is the direct phonological precursor to the Modern Irish ná. The third extension of the C to P reanalysis is the loss of tense morphology from the comparative marker, as expected, since prepositions don’t inflect for tense. This loss is seen clearly in the Milan Glosses. In the bracketed part of example (40), a second form of the verb -tá is used after indaas in a situation in which the prereanalysis structure would have just inflected oldaas itself as shown in (hypothetical) example (41). (40)

Nicon ru accobrus ní bed uilliu [indaas not prf desire.1s.pst something cop.3s.cond more [than OP ro nd bói m’ ingnae.] (how) prf (nas)it was my understanding ‘I haven’t desired anything more than how my understanding (of it) was.’ (Ml. 136b7)

(41)

Nicon ru accobrus ní not prf desire.1s.pst anything mbói m’ ingnae. (nas)was.3s.pst my understanding ‘...’

bed uilliu cop.3s.cond more

[ol [beyond

OP (how)

The loss of tense was likely complete in the tenth century. Afterwards, I have only found one example from the eleventh century text LU Táin (line: 3980). However, given that this is a compilation of various older texts, this tensed form can likely be seen as scribal archaism. After the extensions of the ninth century, as discussed above, a second round of extensions occurred in the eleventh or twelfth centuries. The corpus of texts compiled for this chapter can be interpreted as showing that the main thrust of these extensions was to assimilate oldaas/indaas as much as possible to other prepositions. In the eleventh century, the beginnings of the Modern Irish comparative particle ná can be seen. Since there is no phonological rule by which final /s/ is lost in the transition between Old and Modern Irish, the loss of the final /s/ in oldaas/indaas should be viewed as partially a morphological process as discussed briefly above with regard to exaptation of -as as the copula (38, 39) and as a third person prepositional agreement (37) and partially on account of a parameter change. McCloskey and Hale (1984) observed that, in Modern Irish, agreement is only with non-overt

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

211

pronominals (pro), but the non-agreeing forms of verbs and prepositions are used before overt nouns. In Old Irish this was somewhat true, for at least simple (nonderived) prepositions. However, for verbs and derived prepositions this was not the case. Verbs in Old Irish agreed with fully overt nouns, as we see in (42), and derived prepositions did as well, as in (43), with the derived preposition genmotha- (from cen ‘without’ -tá ‘exist’). (42)

Do lotar meic Diarmata . . . fechtus n-aili hi tír pv went.3p sons Diarmat.gen time.acc (nas)-other into land Laigen. Leinster.gen ‘The sons of Diarmat went another time to the land of the Leinstermen.’ (ODR 1)

(43) co-ro chriathrastair na criocha genmothat na dúine. so-prf pillaged.3s.pst the.pl lands except.for/outside.of.3p the.pl forts ‘So that he pillaged the lands outside of/excepting the forts . . . ’ (BAR §89) At some point, this system changed to a system that looks more like Modern Irish as observed by McCloskey and Hale (1984). There is no space to go into the details of this change. However, presumably, the loss of the possibility of agreement with overt nominals should be described as a parameter change. In Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) terms, this would be something like a change of phi*agree to phi(agree), the loss being the requirement that an agreement relationship be phonologically realized. This parameter change can help make sense of the eventual loss of agreement with olda-/inda- the new preposition created during the ninth century as discussed above. Other cases of the loss of agreement in general, and the loss of the former relative ending -as in particular, are diverse and a full discussion of them would be out of place here as they are not clearly on account of parameter changes. However, as one final example, I note that other prepositions in Old and Middle Irish had what I term s-forms, in a limited number of contexts: in the third singular (as we have seen above) and before the definite article as in (44), which is an artificial example. (44)

Attá i-s in thig be.3s.prs in-s the house.dat ‘He is in the house.’

This s-form was not used if a noun phrase was embedded under a possessive or if it was indefinite. As the comparative particle was progressively assimilated to morphology of normal prepositions, the texts show a loss of the former relative marker, exapted as an s-form in these environments as well. This analogy happened sometime in the eleventh century as (45) shows.

212

(45)

Elliott Lash

Ní ba mó uide neich uaib not cop.3s.pst greater journey anyone.gen from.2p indé oldá m’ uidi sea. yesterday than my journey 1s ‘The journey of none of you yesterday was greater than my journey.’ (AMC 265)

To summarize this section, I have shown that after becoming an enclitic in C, the original verbal form daäs became reanalyzed again as part of the preposition selecting CP or DP. This was followed by several extensions, which progressively made the newly created preposition olda-/inda- more preposition-like. These changes occurred between the ninth and fifteenth century, with major changes in the distribution of tense and the s-form14 occurring in the ninth and eleventh centuries. One further parameter change, that affected agreement, severely limited the occurrence of the s-form as well as other agreeing forms, which eventually let to the Modern Irish invariant ná.15

11.7 Conclusion In this chapter I have examined the diachronic development of the Irish comparative marker starting in the pre-Old Irish period (pre-eighth century) and showed that a prehistoric parameter change, from C[tense]*agree to C[tense]*merge allowed for the possibility that tense could be merged high. This led to the possibility of a gappinglike analysis in comparative clauses. The verb daäs could be analyzed as instantiating C, rather than V-in-T. This V to C category change was the extension of the parameter change. As a C element, it was unstressed and could cliticize to the preposition before it at PF. This led to the possibility of analyzing the original verb as prepositional agreement, whence a C to P shift. Again, this should not be viewed as a formal grammaticalization as it does not appear to conform to Roberts and Roussou’s idea of grammaticalization as a phenomenon associated with upward reanalysis because of parameter change. It is of course a grammaticalization from the perspective of Givón (1971: 413), since it is an example of the development of ‘today’s morphology [from] yesterday’s syntax’. The origin of the Irish comparative

14 The development of the former relative ending can be summarized in the following way: It was exapted as (a) copula, (b) third singular prepositional agreement, (c) s-form in definite contexts, or (not discussed in the text) assimilated phonologically to following demonstratives (i.e. indaas/oldaas sin/so became inda/olda sin/so); or its distribution, along with the distribution of other agreement inflexions was curtailed via parameter change. 15 The last hold out of agreement before overt NPs was the form náit (3p) found in the seventeenth century text, Desiderius. This late form can be compared with the Munster dialect forms such as táid ‘be.3p’ used before overt NPs, for which see Ó Siadhail (1989: 182).

Diachronic development of the Irish comparative particle

213

particle thus reveals a tension between grammaticalization as formally conceived and grammaticalization as discussed in the literature devoted to grammaticalization theory. Roberts and Roussou’s work makes great strides in enabling a discussion of the formal aspects of grammaticalization. However, it is clear that more work needs to be done in order to characterize non-parametric ‘morphologization’.

12 Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation ANA MARIA MARTINS

12.1 Introduction The concept of metalinguistic negation acquired prominence in the linguistics literature after the work of Laurence Horn (1985, 1989), who elaborated on work by earlier authors (see, among others, Grice 1967, Ducrot 1972, and Dummet 1973). In Horn’s words, metalinguistic negation is ‘a device for objecting to a previous utterance on any grounds whatever’, ‘a speaker’s use of negation to signal his or her unwillingness to assert, or accept another’s assertion of, a given proposition in a given way’. Accordingly, ‘metalinguistic negation focuses not on the truth or falsity of a proposition, but on the assertability of an utterance’ (cf. Horn 1989: 363).1 Sentences (1a.–e.) illustrate the metalinguistic use of negation (cf. Horn 1989: 362ff). Because the same negative marker (i.e. not) expresses ordinary negation and metalinguistic negation, it is the rectification part of the sentences in (1) that undoes the interpretative ambiguity. As shown by (1a.–e.), metalinguistic negation, in contrast to negation proper, does not necessarily entail the untruth of the corresponding affirmative proposition. Sentence (1e.) makes clear, in addition, that a sentence expressing metalinguistic negation does not strictly require being anchored to a previous utterance, as far as it is denial of a common ground presupposition. (1)

a. A: Some men are chauvinists. B: Some men aren’t chauvinists—all men are chauvinists.

As for the notion of assertable, Horn elucidates: ‘It should be acknowledged that the notion assertable, as employed by Grice, Dummett, and me, must be taken as elliptical for something like “felicitously assertable” or “appropriately assertable”, where the adverbial hedge is broad enough to cover the wide range of examples ( . . . ). But the distinction drawn by Grice and Dummett between rejecting a claim as false and rejecting it as (pehraps true, but) unassertable suggests the proper approach for characterizing the two uses of negation’ (Horn 1989: 379). 1

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

215

b. A: He is meeting a woman this evening. B: No, he’s not (meeting a woman this evening)—he’s meeting his wife! c. A: They had a baby and got married. B: They didn’t have a baby and get married, they got married and had a baby. d. A: Were you a little worried? B: I wasn’t a little worried, my friend; I was worried sick. e. It’s not a car, it’s a Volkswagen. (VW commercial and advertisement). In every language the standard predicative negation marker may express metalinguistic negation as well (as illustrated by the sentences in (1) above, where not allows a metalinguistic interpretation). Moreover, languages in general express metalinguistic negation through certain sentence-peripheral idiomatic expressions, which lexically vary from language to language (and within the same language) but nonetheless display a similar syntax across languages. Sentences (2) to (4) exemplify these sentence-peripheral metalinguistic negation markers in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. (2)

a. Like hell Al and Hilary are married. b. Al and Hilary are married my eye. (cf. Drozd 2001: 55)

English

(3)

a. Canta sings

Spanish

bien well

tu your

tía. aunt.

b. Tu tía si que canta your aunt aff that sings ‘She/he doesn’t sing well.’ (4)

a. Canta sings

bem well

uma a

bien. well

ova. fish roe

b. Uma ova é que canta a fish roe is that sings ‘She/he doesn’t sing well.’

European Portuguese bem. well

Languages do not usually display sentence-internal unambiguous metalinguistic negation markers. In European Portuguese (EP), however, the deictic locatives lá/cá (‘there/here’) can occur in sentence-internal position and express metalinguistic negation. When playing such a role, they are totally devoid of locative meaning (so, throughout this chapter, the glosses of the EP data will not show English equivalents for lá/cá). Example (5) below, to be compared to Horn’s example in (1d.) above, shows the particular pattern of metalinguistic negation found in European Portuguese (cf. (5)-B-b.).

216 (5)

Ana Maria Martins A: Tu estás um pouco preocupado, you are a little worried ‘You are a little worried, aren’t you?’ B: a. Eu não I not morto de dead of b. Eu I

estou am

estou um am a preocupação. worry lá/cá lá/cá

um a

não not

pouco little

pouco little

estás? are

preocupado. worried.

preocupado. worried.

Estou am

Estou am

morto de dead of

preocupação. worry ‘I’m not a little worried; I’m worried sick.’ The main goal of this chapter is to clarify how the deictic locatives lá/cá developed into metalinguistic negation markers in EP, while preserving their regular working as locatives. We will also want to know how may this particular feature of EP (i.e. displaying clause-internal unambiguous metalinguistic negation markers) correlate with other grammatical properties of the language. It will be proposed that Spec,TP is not the subject position in EP but a utterance-time (UT-T) position (see Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 2000). This allows deictic locatives to be merged in Spec, TP in two ways: scrambled argumental locatives move from VP to Spec,TP, signalling UT-T but preserving their locative meaning; non-argumental locatives can be directly merged in Spec,TP, in order to give visibility to the speaker at UT-T, with the interpretative result of emphasis. This emphatic value of the deictic locatives cá/ lá (which correlates with bleaching of the locative meaning) is attested in European Portuguese from the sixteenth century, in declarative and imperative clauses. The emphatic use of lá/cá is also found in rhetorical questions, which offer the natural pragmatic and syntactic link with metalinguistic negation. Movement of lá/cá from Spec,TP to higher functional positions in the left-periphery of the sentence derives rhetorical questions and metalinguistic negation declaratives, in which the basic emphatic meaning contributed by non-argumental lá/cá is preserved while further meaning is added. The chapter is organized in five sections. Section 12.2 offers evidence, through the application of standard tests, that the deictic locatives lá/cá are metalinguistic negation markers (in the type of utterances under discussion). Section 12.3 shows that, in fact, the words lá/cá are cumulatively deictic locatives, emphatic markers, and metalinguistic negation markers. The relevant non-locative values of lá/cá are described and historical data are introduced in order to clarify matters of relative chronology with respect to the change under scrutiny. Section 12.4 discusses two aspects of the diachronic evolution of the deictic locatives lá/cá: first, the path from

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

217

ordinary locatives to emphatic markers; then the path from emphatic markers to metalinguistic negation markers. The former issue will require that EP locative middle-scrambling be taken into account (see Costa and Martins (2009, 2010)); the development of the locative-based emphatic markers into metalinguistic negation markers will call for a syntactic analysis of metalinguistic negation declaratives with lá/cá. Section 12.5 concludes the chapter.

12.2 Metalinguistic negation in European Portuguese Standard tests to identify metalinguistic negation are introduced below, in (i) to (iii). In (6a.) the polarity-sensitive words pretty, somewhat, rather are incompatible with ordinary negation; at the same time, lack of an appropriate discourse context blocks the interpretation of negation as metalinguistic negation. Thus (6a.) is ruled out, in contrast with (6b.). Example (7) shows that metalinguistic negation (see (7)-B-b.), in sharp contrast to ordinary negation (see (7)-B-a.), does not license negative polarity items (NPIs); it allows instead positive polarity items (PPIs), as illustrated in (8). All the examples are taken from Horn (1989: 368ff). (i)

Metalinguistic negation must be licensed by the discourse context because it is, typically, denial of the assertability of an earlier utterance

(6)

a. ??He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall. b. A: He is {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall. B: He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall—he’s humongous.

(ii)

Metalinguistic negation does not license NPIs

(7)

A: Chris managed to solve some problems. B: a. Chris didn’t manage to solve any problems. b. Chris didn’t manage to solve {some/*any} problems—he solved them easily.

(iii) Metalinguistic negation is compatible with PPIs (8)

A: You still love me. B: Like hell I {still love you/*love you anymore}.

By applying these same tests to sentences where the EP words lá/cá express denial, we get unequivocal confirmation that lá/cá exclusively signal metalinguistic negation, not ordinary negation. Take the discourse-context test, requiring metalinguistic negation to be denial of (the assertability of ) an earlier utterance (or denial of a common ground presupposition). Uttered out of the blue, to initiate a conversation, the sentences in (9) and (10) are descriptions of a state of affairs and the negative marker in them can only encode ordinary negation. As expected and confirmed by the grammaticality

218

Ana Maria Martins

contrast between the (a.) and (b.) examples in (9)–(10), the unambiguous metalinguistic negation markers lá/cá are ruled out in such sentences. (9)

a. Ah, ah

não not

trouxe brought-1sg

a the

carteira! wallet

Pagas-me pay-2sg-me-dat

o the

café? coffee

b. *Ah, trouxe lá/cá a carteira! Pagas-me o café? ah brought-1sg lá/cá the wallet pay-2sg-me-dat the coffee ‘Ah, I forgot my wallet! Will you pay for my coffee?’ (10)

a. Hoje today

não not

estás are-2sg

com with

boa good

cara. face.

O the

b. *Hoje estás lá/cá com boa cara. O today are-2sg lá/cá with good face. the ‘You don’t look good today. What happened?’

que what que what

se.passa? is-going-on se.passa? is-going-on

The licensing of positive polarity items constitutes a robust test to set apart ordinary negation and metalinguistic negation. While the former excludes strong PPIs, the latter is fully compatible with them. The examples in (11) and (12) show that the idiomatic expressions do diabo (literally ‘of the devil’) and e peras (literally ‘and pears’) are strong PPIs in European Portuguese, so they occur in affirmative declaratives (see the examples (a.)) but are excluded from negative and interrogative sentences (see the (b.) to (c.) examples). Crucially, they are perfectly fine in sentences where denial is expressed by lá/cá, which supports the view that we are dealing here with metalinguistic negation markers, not with ordinary negation (see the (d.) examples). (11)

a. Ele é um nadador he is a swimmer ‘He is a great swimmer.’

e and

peras. pears

b. *Ele não é uma nadador e peras. (out-of-the-blue declarative) he not is a swimmer and pears ‘He isn’t a great swimmer.’ c. *Ele é um nadador e peras? he is a swimmer and pears ‘Is he a great swimmer?’ d. Ele é lá/cá um nadador e peras. (as a reply to (11a.))2 he is lá/cá a swimmer and pears ‘He isn’t a great swimmer.’ 2

Sentences (11b.) and (12b.) could be interpreted as instances of metalinguistic negation only if they were associated with a continuation/rectification, which is not a necessary condition for the availability of sentences (11d.) and (12d.), since the words lá, cá signal but metalinguistic negation.

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation (12)

a. Tiveste uma sorte had-2sg a good-luck ‘So lucky you were!’

do of-the

219

diabo. devil

b. *Não tiveste uma sorte do diabo. (out-of-the-blue declarative) not had-2sg a good-luck of-the devil ‘You were not that lucky.’ c. *Tiveste uma sorte had-2sg a good-luck ‘Were you really lucky?’ d. Tive lá/cá uma had-1sg lá/cá a ‘I wasn’t so lucky.’

do of-the

sorte good-luck

diabo? devil do of-the

diabo. (as a reply to (12a.)) devil

Sentences (13) to (15) further confirm that lá/cá are metalinguistic negation markers, by revealing their inability to license NPIs like ninguém (‘nobody’), nem morta (literally ‘not even dead’), and de todo (‘at all’), which are regularly licensed under ordinary negation expressed by não ‘not’ (compare the (B-a.) examples with the (B-b.) examples). (13)

A: Tu é que conheces uma pessoa que you is that know-2sg a person that ‘You do know someone that can fix this.’

sabe knows

arranjar fix-inf

isto. this

B: a. Eu não conheço ninguém que saiba arranjar isso. I not know-1sg nobody that knows fix-inf that b. Eu conheço lá/cá {alguém/*ninguém} que saiba I know-1sg lá/cá somebody/*nobody that knows ‘I don’t know anyone who can fix that.’ (14)

A: Hoje vais sair comigo. today go-2sg go-out with-me ‘Today we are going out together.’ B: a. Eu I

não not

saio go-out-1sg

contigo with-you

b. *Eu saio lá/cá contigo I go-out-1sg lá/cá with-you ‘No way I will go out with you.’ (15)

A: Eu sei que tu gostas I know-1sg that you like-2sg ‘I know that you like seafood.’ B: a. Eu I

não not

gosto like-1sg

de of

nem not-even

morta. dead

nem not-even de of

marisco de seafood at

marisco. seafood todo. all

morta. dead

arranjar fix-inf

isso. that

Ana Maria Martins

220

b. *Eu gosto lá/cá de marisco I like-1sg lá/cá of seafood ‘I don’t like seafood at all.’

de todo. at all

An additional test enables us to separate metalinguistic negation expressed by lá/ cá from ordinary negation. The former in contrast to the latter is confined to root clauses and excluded from embedded ones.3 (16)

A:

O Pedro disse que vendeu the Pedro said-3sg that sold-3sg ‘Pedro said that he sold the car.’

B:

a. O Pedro disse lá/cá the Pedro said-3sg lá/cá b. O Pedro não disse the Pedro not said-3sg ‘Pedro didn’t say that he sold the

o carro. the car

que that que that car.’

c. *O Pedro disse que vendeu the Pedro said-3sg that sold-3sg d. O Pedro disse que não the Pedro said-3sg that not ‘Pedro said that he didn’t sell the car.’

vendeu sold-3sg vendeu sold-3sg

o the o the

carro. car carro car

lá/cá lá/cá vendeu sold-3sg

o the o the

carro car carro car

3 This test by itself does not single out metalinguistic negation since it is also a property of emphatic negation (see (i) below), which additionally shares with metalinguistic negation the denial nature that imposes licensing by the right type of discourse context. Emphatic negation in contrast to metalinguistic negation, however, licenses NPIs (see (ii) below), thus qualifying as an instance of ordinary negation.

(i)

A:

O Pedro disse que vendeu the Pedro said that sold-3sg ‘Pedro said that he sold the car.’

o the

B: a. O Pedro não disse que the Pedro not said that ‘Pedro did NOT say that he sold the car.’

carro. car vendeu sold-3sg

b. *O Pedro disse que não vendeu the Pedro said that not sold-3sg ‘Pedro said that he did NOT sell the car.’ (ii)

A:

Ela não gosta de ninguém. she not likes of nobody ‘She doesn’t like anybody.’

B:

Não acredito. not believe-1sg ‘That can’t be true.’

A:

Não gosta de not likes of ‘No, she really doesn’t.’

ninguém nobody

não. no

o the

o the

carro car

carro car

não. no

não. no

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

221

Last but not least, the metalinguistic negation markers lá/cá occur in postverbal position while ordinary propositional negation is obligatorily encoded preverbally in European Portuguese (see (16) above).

12.3 Lá/cá through time: non-locative values besides metalinguistic negation The earlier (currently available) attestations of lá/cá as metalinguistic negation markers are found in the nineteenth century (see (17) and (18)), first in the theatre of Almeida Garrett (born in 1799), then, more profusely, in the Romantic novel of authors like Camilo Castelo Branco (born in 1825) and Júlio Dinis (born in 1839). (17)

Duarte: E o seu almoço em casa and the your lunch in-the house ‘What about the lunch at the baron’s?’ B. F.:

do of-the

barão de Granja? baron of Granja

Importa-me cá o almoço nem meio almoço! value-1sg-myself cá the lunch nor half lunch ‘I don’t care about the lunch!’ (A. Garrett. nineteenth century. CHTB)

(18) a. – Então andas doente, Ana? ( . . . ) so are-2sg sick, Ana – Eu doente? Ora essa! Eu sou lá criatura que adoeça! me sick? now that! I am lá creature that gets-sick ‘– I’ve heard you are sick. Is that so, Ana? – Me sick? What a silly idea! I’m not someone to fall sick!’ b. – Quem foi? – Eu sei lá, senhora mãe! who was? I know lá lady mother ‘Who did it? – I don’t know, mother. How shall I know?’ (Júlio Dinis. nineteenth century. CP) Other non-locative values of lá/cá can be found much earlier. In fact, the plays of the prominent sixteenth century playwright Gil Vicente are very rich in data featuring non-argumental uses of lá/cá. The fact that the expression of metalinguistic negation is not among them makes it quite indisputable that the metalinguistic negation value arose as a later development. There is still enough room left for uncertainty with respect to chronology, because for the time being we just do not have access to written sources of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as revealing of the colloquial language as the sixteenth century theatre of Gil Vicente and the nineteenth century Romantic novel. Be it as it may, it is possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that other non-argumental uses of lá/cá chronologically precede the metalinguistic negation use. We will now consider these other ‘non-

222

Ana Maria Martins

locative’ instantiations of lá/cá.4 In order to keep examples to a reasonable extent, in the remainder of the current section exemplification will be restricted to sentences with lá. 12.3.1 Emphatic lá in imperative sentences The term emphasis will be used in this chapter to mean that in one way or other some component of the speaker’s point of view with respect to an uttered proposition is made visible or salient, so the presence of emphatic markers in a sentence typically allows for inferences that would not be available in their absence. Imperatives with lá do not express commands but vehement requests, by which the speaker intends to grant a positive response from the interlocutor, in spite of the fact that the speaker does not have evidence for it (see example (19)). The presence of non-argumental lá in an imperative sentence adds imperative force in a polite and cooperative manner, thus signalling the speaker’s attitude towards the prejacent proposition. Imperative lá is devoid of locative meaning which allows it to co-occur with other deictic locatives within the same sentence, as illustrated in (20). (19)

Adult: Dá-me um Give me a Child: Não. No Adult: Dá Give-imp-2sg ‘Please!’

beijo. kiss

lá. lá

4 Out of the picture will stay lá/cá as focus/emphatic markers in the DP domain and as polaritysensitive words. As NPIs, lá and cá are interpretatively distinct (the former is a down-toner/compromiser, the latter reinforces the negative assertion, as exemplified in (i)), which is not the case when they are metalinguistic negation markers. Lá (but not cá) is also a reinforcing PPI, as shown in (ii).

(i)

a. Não gosto lá muito not like-1sg lá much ‘I don’t particularly like that.’ b. Não gosto cá not like-1sg cá ‘I don’t like that at all!’

(ii)

a. Está cá um is cá a ‘It’s SO cold!’

disso. of-that

dessas of-those

coisas. things

frio! cold

b. Tem cá uma casa! (lá em Barcelona) has cá a house (there in Barcelona) ‘He has such a {big/beautiful/great} apartment! (there, in Barcelona)’

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation (20)

a. Fica lá aí stay-imp-2sg lá there-close-to-addressee ‘Please, stay there and don’t move’

223

quieta. still

b. Põe lá a mesa aqui. Put-imp-2sg lá the table here ‘Please, put the table in here (don’t be stubborn).’ Imperative sentences with emphatic lá are well attested from the sixteenth century on. (21) and (22) display sixteenth and nineteenth century examples respectively. (21)

a. Agasalhai-me lá, Florença warm-imp-2pl-me lá, Florença ‘Warm me, Florença!’ b. Ora escutade lá now listen-imp-2pl lá ‘Now, listen to me, please!’ c. conta lá outra história tell-imp-2pl lá another story ‘Please, tell us another story!’ (Gil Vicente. sixteenth century. GV)

(22)

a. Deixa-os lá e não te Leave-imp-2sg-them lá and don’t yourself ‘Let them be and don’t you worry about it!’

consumas consume

com with

isso. that

b. Ó mulher, guarde lá a sua língua woman guard-prs-sbjv-3sg lá the your tongue hey ‘Hey, woman, do me a favour and guard your tongue!’ / ‘Hey, woman, you should not say such things!’ (Júlio Dinis. nineteenth century. CP) 12.3.2 Emphatic lá in declarative sentences Declarative sentences with emphatic lá denote the speaker’s attitude towards the prejacent proposition either by reinforcing the assertive force or by adding a comment on top of the mere assertion of the proposition. The comment introduced by the presence of lá allows a range of interpretations (at times very elusive) and the bias can be towards a positive or a negative evaluation, as illustrated in (23). Sentences (23a.–b.) describe a state of affairs and express annoyance with respect to it (allowing the inference that the speaker would prefer to not be faced with such state of affairs); sentence (23c.) also describes a state of affairs but expresses relief with respect to it (permitting the inference that it was desired and not easy to obtain).

224

Ana Maria Martins

While in imperative sentences emphatic lá is postverbal, it is preverbal in declarative sentences. If the structural position of emphatic lá in imperatives and declaratives is invariable (the simpler hypothesis), the word order facts are just what we expect under the assumption that in imperatives the verb moves higher than in declaratives (that is to say, it moves from T to S in imperatives, deriving the order verb-lá because Spec,TP is the locus of emphatic lá; see Laka (1990) and section 12.4).5 (23)

a. Lá está ele aqui lá is he here ‘Here he is again!’

outra another

vez. time

b. Lá fiquei sem almoço. lá stayed-1sg without lunch ‘Shit! I won’t be able to have lunch today / I will have to skip my lunch!’ c. Lá conseguimos! lá succeeded-1pl ‘We did finally succeed!’ / ‘We did succeed after all!’ Emphatic lá can be found in declarative sentences since the sixteenth century. Illustrative examples taken from sixteenth to nineteenth century texts are given in (24) to (27). (24)

se não andavam sobre aviso lá ia a cepa e a cepeira if not were-3pl on guard lá went the vine and the grapevine ‘If they were not on their guard, they would have lost everything!’ (Gil Vicente. sixteenth century. GV)

(25)

Lá disse o Propheta ( . . . ), que nas nuvens do ar até lá said the prophet that in-the clouds of-the air even a água é escura the water is dark ‘So said the prophet, that when it comes to the clouds the water itself is dark.’ (António Vieira, seventeenth century. TB)

(26)

a. depois que after that a reza the pray ‘When he was

5

lhe deu os cabellos do boi la fes him gave-3sg the hairs of-the bull lá made que lhe pareseu that him seemed given the bull’s hairs, he did practise some black magic.’

The fact that emphatic lá does not block the licensing of S (see section 12.4) suggests that emphatic lá itself licenses S through morphological merger under adjacency (as for the relation between the functional head S and emphatic affirmation, see Laka 1990).

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

225

b. Vmce la sabe melhor o q deve fazer you lá know better the what must do-inf ‘You certainly know (better than I do) what must be done.’ (eighteenth century. CARDS, years 1717, 1797) (27)

a. Ele lá sabe voltar o pai para onde quer e he lá knows turn-inf the father to where wants and afinal quem fica mal sou eu. finally who stays badly is I ‘He really knows how to put his father on his side, and eventually I will be the bad guy!’ b. Essa lá me custa a that lá me-dat costs to ‘That’s a hard one to swallow!’

engolir! swallow (Júlio Dinis. nineteenth century. CP)

12.3.3 Lá in rhetorical questions The presence of lá appears to reinforce the implicated assertive component of rhetorical questions. Thus (28), for example, carries a particularly strong bias towards a negative reply, meaning that the speaker is predisposed to accept but the confirmation that ‘there is nothing better than staying on the beach’ or the agreeing silence of the interlocutor. In contemporary European Portuguese (see (28)) and in the nineteenth century (see (29)), rhetorical questions with lá seem to impose restrictions on the verbal predicates they allow (haver ‘have’ and the epistemic modal poder ‘can, may’ are preferred) unless they are introduced by a wh-phrase. (28)

Há lá coisa melhor que estar na praia? is lá thing better than be-inf in-the beach ‘Could anything be better than staying on the beach?’

(29) a. Que tem lá what has lá ‘And so what?’

isso? that

b. E podem lá exigir-se and can lá demand-inf-impersonal-se ‘Can affection ever be an object of demand?’

afeições? affection

c. Há lá coisa que puxe mais por uma pessoa do.que o estudo! is lá thing that takes more out-of a person than the study ‘Could there be anything unhealthier than studying all the time?’ (Júlio Dinis. nineteenth century. CP)

226

Ana Maria Martins

The rhetorical questions with lá that could be tracked down in the sixteenth and seventeenth century texts do not display the grammatical properties of their contemporary cognates. In fact, each one of the sentences presented in (30) to (33) would not constitute a grammatical option nowadays. It is particularly intriguing that most of the attested earlier examples display an echoic use of the imperative, as illustrated by (31) to (33). The imperative casai lá (‘get married’) in (31), folgai lá (‘enjoy yourselves’) in (32), and olhai lá (‘look at him’) in (33) echoes what the girls’ parents would tell them to do but they won’t. This echoic use of the imperative with emphatic lá illuminates the link between imperatives and rhetorical questions with lá.6 (30)

Porteiro: doorkeeper Vilão: plebeian

(31)

en este templo sagrado / no entrarás labrador in this temple sacred not will-enter farmer ‘You will not get in this sacred temple.’ Achais lá que é consciência find-prs-2pl lá that is fair vir homem dalém de Braga come-inf a-man from-above of Braga do concelho de Cornaga from-the district of Cornaga gastando o que nam alcança spending the what not reaches depois estar nesta praga? and-then be-inf in-this hell ‘Do you think it’s fair that someone who came from so far, spending more than he has got, may go through such hell?’ (Gil Vicente. sixteenth century. GV)

Inês Pereira: Pessoa conheço eu person know I que levara outro caminho that will-take another way casai lá com um vilanzinho marry-imp lá with a little-plebeian mais covarde que um judeu. more coward than a jew ‘I will not do what I’m told to do. How can I possibly marry such a coward nobody?’ (Gil Vicente. sixteenth century. GV)

6

Cf. Carston (1998, 1999) on the echoic nature of metalinguistic negation.

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

227

(32)

Juliana: eu nam sei por que respeito I not know for what respect nossas mães e nossos pais our mothers and our fathers nos trazem maridos tais us-dat bring-3pl husbands like-that tanto contra nosso jeito so-much against our liking que os diabos nam são mais. that the devils not are more As cabeças como outeiros the heads like knolls os cabelos carcomidos the hair rotten louros como sovereiros blond like corktrees penteados d’ano em ano combed once a year maus chiotes de má pano bad garments of bad cloth folgai lá com tais maridos. enjoy-imp-2pl lá with such husbands ‘It’s not understandable why our parents want to get us married with men so utterly against our preference. How could we be pleased with such unpleasant husbands?’ (Gil Vicente. sixteenth century. GV)

(33)

Brites: Mas que não tenham ceitil, but even-if not have a-cent saibam falar português should-know-3pl speak-inf Portuguese tenham arte! should-have-3pl art! Olhai lá para um D. Gil look-imp-2pl lá to a Don Gil mais cansado que um maltês! more tired than a vagabond ‘I will prefer any poor poet to that worthless of Don Gil. How can I possibly look at such worn-out man?’ (F. M. de Mello. seventeenth century. FA)

228

Ana Maria Martins

12.4 From emphasis to metalinguistic negation: the role of Spec,TP Following work by Costa and Martins (2009, 2010), it will be proposed in this section that Spec,TP in European Portuguese is a dedicated utterance time position (i.e. UT-T, in the sense of Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000)), which can be made visible by speaker/utterance-anchored deictic locatives. Argumental deictic locatives may scramble from within the VP domain to Spec,TP; non-argumental deictic locatives may give content to Spec,TP by external merge, in which case they act as emphatic markers devoid of locative meaning. The fact that in the course of time middle scrambling in EP came to be restricted to deictic locatives is presumably at the origin of the particular relation between deictic locatives and Spec,TP that would eventually allow the former to directly enter the TP domain.7 Through further upward movement in the functional system, the basically locative emphatic markers became, additionally, structural pieces of rhetorical questions and metalinguistic negation declaratives. While the cross-linguistically pervasive sentence-peripheral metalinguistic negation markers (such as my eye, like hell, EP uma ova ‘a fish roe’) directly merge in the CP domain, the more unusual sentence-internal metalinguistic negation markers (like EP lá, cá) are rooted in the TP domain and reach CP by movement.8

7

Differently from Modern Portuguese, Old Portuguese displayed generalized middle-scrambling (see Martins 2002). The loss of generalized middle-scrambling happened in the sixteenth century, that is to say, at the time when lá/cá emerged as emphatic markers devoid of locative meaning. There are two series of deictic locatives in EP. The -á series is a binary system including cá ‘here’ and lá ‘there’; the -i series displays a three-forms system: aqui (‘here’), aí (‘there’—close to addressee), ali (‘there’—distant from speaker and addressee). Although all deictic locatives can undergo middle scrambling, only the -á series locatives can act as emphatic and metalinguistic negation markers. The contrast may be accounted for under the hypothesis that there is a weak/strong distinction between the two types of locatives (in the sense of Cardinaletti and Starke 1999), as suggested to me by Jairo Nunes (p.c.). Only the weak deictic locatives entered the functional system, in the sense of Roberts and Roussou (2003). The weak deictic locatives (i.e. the -á series) in contrast to the strong ones (i.e. the -i series) cannot occur with gestures and are incompatible with transposed deictic use: (i) A: Mostra-me no mapa show me on-the map

onde fica Portugal. where stays Portugal

B: {Aqui /*Cá}. (pointing to the map) here / here (ii) Põe a mesa put the table (iii)

{aqui / ali / *cá / *lá}. (pointing with the hands or the eyes) here / there / here / there

Ele magoou-se {aqui / *cá} no braço (showing where) he hurt-himself here / here on-the arm

(iv) {Aqui / *cá} here / here

começa begins

a the

história story

dos of-the

dois two

amantes. lovers (introducing a scene in a play).

8 Sentence-internal metalinguistic negation (MN) markers and sentence-peripheral MN markers behave differently with respect to a series of syntactic criteria besides word order, namely: availability in isolation and nominal fragments, ability to deny a negative proposition, compatibility with emphatic/

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

229

12.4.1 Middle scrambling of deictic locatives as movement to Spec,TP Previous work by Costa and Martins (2009, 2010) discusses the peculiar ability of speaker/utterance-anchored deictic locatives to appear left-adjacent to the verb in EP and the restrictions to which such placement is subject. The empirical observations that are relevant for our current purposes are enunciated in (i) and (ii) below and illustrated by (34) to (37). (i)

A preverbal element like the adverbs ‘never’/‘already’ in (34) or the quantifier ‘everybody’ in (36) is required to enable the deictic locatives to surface before the verb.

(34)

a. Eu I

nunca/já never/already

estive was

lá/cá. there/here

b. Eu nunca/já lá/cá estive. I never/already there/here was ‘I’ve never been there/here.’ / ‘I’ve been there/here already.’ (35)

a. Eu I

estive was

lá/cá there/here

ontem yesterday

b. *Eu lá/cá estive ontem. I there/here was yesterday ‘I was there/here yesterday.’ (36)

de lá vieram doentes. a. Todos everybody from there came sick ‘Everybody came sick from there.’ b. *A Maria de lá veio the Maria from there came ‘Maria came sick from there.’

doente. sick

(ii)

In the contexts in which locative-preposing is allowed, the locative is obligatorily adjacent to the verb (in (37) below it is the underlined complementizer that makes the preverbal position available to the locative).

(37)

a. Ela she

diz says

b. Ela she

diz que says that

que that

lá there

vai goes

amanhã tomorrow

amanhã. tomorrow lá there

vai. goes

contrastive high constituents, compatibility with coordinate structures featuring a sequence of events, compatibility with idiomatic sentences, compatibility with VP ellipsis. Sentence-peripheral MN markers, but not sentence-internal MN markers, answer positively to these syntactic tests. See Martins (2010, 2011) for a discussion of the empirical evidence supporting the bipartite typology of MN markers.

230

Ana Maria Martins c. *Ela diz que lá amanhã vai. she says that there tomorrow goes ‘She says that she will go there tomorrow.’

Costa and Martins (2009, 2010) propose that leftward movement of the deictic locatives is middle scrambling, understood as movement to Spec,TP. Two sets of data are smoothly derived under the analysis of locative-preposing as movement to Spec,TP. First: since Portuguese has V-to-T movement and middle scrambling places the deictic locative in Spec,TP, the scrambled locative is necessarily leftadjacent to the verb. Second: movement of the deictic locative to a specifier position fits in with the empirical evidence showing that lá-preposing is not head-movement (cf. (36) above). In order to explain why scrambling of the deictic locatives to Spec,TP is not always permitted, the authors rely on the hypothesis that in EP the strong nature of the polarity-encoding head S (which immediately dominates TP) requires it to be ‘lexicalized’ either by syntactic merger or by morphological merger under adjacency (cf. Costa and Martins (2003, 2004)). Middle scrambling is barred whenever S and V must be adjacent.9 In the environments that license scrambling of the locative, S is licensed by some appropriate element syntactically merged in its domain or in a higher domain. In the environments blocking scrambling of the locative, S merges with the verb via morphological merger, specifically local dislocation merger, a postsyntactic process operating under strict adjacency (Embick and Noyer 2001). A configuration like (38) is not a grammatical option because the locative disrupts the required adjacency between S and V. (38)

* [SP (Subjwithout

polarity features)

[S[ þ aff] [TP loc [ [ V þ T] . . .

Finally, and of crucial relevance to understand the emergence of the non-argumental uses of the deictic locatives lá/cá, it is suggested by Costa and Martins (2009, 2010) that speaker/utterance-anchorage is what links together deictic locatives and tense, enabling the former to enter the syntactic domain of the latter. While lá-type locatives can become left-adjacent to the verb by moving to Spec,TP, this position is not accessible to other locative constituents. The relevant contrast is exemplified in (39) and (40). The sentences in (39) show that a PP integrating lá can undergo middle-scrambling (see (39a.)) while a PP integrating a locative proper name, like Lisboa, or a locative adverb like longe ‘far away’ cannot (see (39b.–c.)). Besides, (40) shows that when the deictic locative lá is doubled by a prepositional phrase, leftward movement of lá leaving the doubling PP behind is allowed (see (40a.)), but movement of the whole big locative constituent is not (see (40b.)). 9

The analysis derives the particular syntax of the deictic locatives in different clausal structures, including restructuring infinitives, and its puzzling parallelism with clitic placement in EP.

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation (39)

a. O Pedro já para the Pedro already/soon to ‘Pedro is ready to go there.’

lá there

para b. *O Pedro já the Pedro already/soon to ‘Pedro is ready to go to Lisbon.’

Lisboa Lisbon

c. *O Pedro já longe the Pedro already far ‘Pedro is far away already.’ (40)

231

vai. goes vai. goes

vai. goes

a. O Pedro já lá vai a casa. the Pedro already/soon there goes to house ‘Pedro is ready to go to his/her/their/our house.’ b. *O the

Pedro Pedro

já already/soon

lá there

a to

casa house

vai. goes

Lá-type locatives denote a location identified with respect to the speaker’s location at the utterance time. This is clearly shown in (41), as the location denoted by lá ‘there’ in this sentence is [  close] to speaker and addressee (the meaning of lá) at the utterance time, but [ þ close] to speaker at the assertion/event time (an effect created by the presence of the first person oblique pronoun comigo ‘with me’). (41)

Ontem ele Yesterday he

esteve was

lá there

comigo. with.me

The special link between tense and lá-type locatives is rooted in their similar nature as utterance-anchored deictics.10 According to Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000), the utterance-time (UT-T) is an argument of T and its syntactic locus is Spec,TP.11 Now, if the utterance time plays a central role in the interpretation of lá-type locatives, and the syntactic locus of the UT-T argument is Spec,TP, it is not

10 Cf. Ritter and Wiltschko (2005, 2009) on the proposal that location, like tense, is one of the values of INFL, which is basically a deictic that anchors events to utterances. ‘Abstracting away from the contribution of aspect, we assume that the universal core function of INFL is to anchor the reported eventuality (Ev) to the utterance (Utt) ( . . . ). Specifically, we analyze INFL as a predicate of coincidence ( þ /  coin) ( . . . ) which orders the eventuality encoded by the VP with respect to the utterance encoded in Spec,IP. ( . . . ) We further propose that the substantive content of INFL varies: in English it is TENSE, in Halkomelem it is LOCATION, and in Blackfoot it is PERSON, resulting in different varieties of the category INFL’ (Ritter and Wiltschko 2009: 156–7). 11 Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000) analyse tense and aspect as dyadic predicates projecting a maximal projection in the syntax and establishing an ordering relation between its two time-denoting arguments. The external argument of tense (T0) is a reference time, the utterance-time (UT-T); its internal argument is the assertion time (AST-T). The external argument of aspect (Asp) is a reference time, the AST-T; its internal argument is the event time (EV-T).

232

Ana Maria Martins

unexpected that Spec,TP might be the target of movement of this particular type of deictic locatives.12 Before we proceed, a note of clarification is in order with respect to the structural position of the subject in European Portuguese. Costa and Martins (2009, 2010) assume that Spec,TP is not the canonical subject position in European Portuguese. Independent evidence that we will not be discussing in this chapter supports the view that in the general case Spec,TP is not projected in European Portuguese (cf. Costa 2003). Under the perspective adopted in previous work and herein, the regular position of preverbal subjects is Spec,SP (Martins 1994, Costa and Martins 2003, 2004).13 12.4.2 From scrambled locatives to emphatic markers to metalinguistic negation markers The development of the deictic locatives lá/cá from ordinary locatives to emphatic markers at a first step (i.e. T-related functional elements under our analysis), then to metalinguistic negation markers (i.e. C-related functional elements) features a well known path for diachronic change, which Roberts and Roussou (2003) subsume under the concept of grammaticalization: Once an element enters the functional system, it will tend to be reanalysed successively upwards in the structure, and this creates grammaticalization paths. (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 235). Pathways of grammaticalization are defined by the functional hierarchy through which grammaticalized material can travel by means of successive upward reanalysis. Thus grammaticalization pathways can be deduced from the functional hierarchy (and possibly vice versa), once upward reanalysis is taken as a basic mechanism of syntactic change. (cf. Roberts and Roussou 2003: 209).

Differently from standard cases of grammaticalization, however, each step of upward ‘reanalysis’ in the diachronic development of EP deictic locatives does not result in the loss of an earlier grammatical value or property. Instead the deictic locatives develop a type of pragmatic and structural polyvalence, which allows them to be cumulatively ordinary locatives, emphatic markers, and metalinguistic negation markers. Each valence is a function of the structural position where they enter the derivation (i.e. where they first merge) combined with whether and where they further move.14 The current case-study thus suggests that pragmaticization and 12 T(ense) may project multiple specifiers under Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000) analysis; so it can accommodate both the UT-T argument and a deictic locative. 13 As for its role with respect to the sentential subject, the SP projection of Martins (1994) may be taken to be equivalent to the SubjP (subject-of-predication) projection of Cardinaletti (1997, 2004). See also Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), Barbosa (2000), Bailyn (2004). 14 How the basic lexical meaning of the locatives becomes inaccessible (for interpretation) when they enter the functional system by external merge is an interesting matter that I will not be able to address in this chapter.

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

233

grammaticalization (in the sense of Roberts and Roussou 2003) follow similar pathways. To summarize up to this point: It was proposed that lá-type locatives and Tense share central properties as speaker-anchored and utterance-anchored deictics. This deictic-relatedness associated with the fact that Spec,TP is not the subject position in EP but a dedicated UT-T position, allows argumental deictic locatives to scramble to the middle field, that is to say, to move to Spec,TP. The particular link between látype deictic locatives and tense came to be further grammatically expressed by allowing direct merge of non-argumental deictic locatives in Spec,TP, where they get interpreted as emphatic markers. This happens in the sixteenth century and might be related to the fact that the generalized middle scrambling of Old Portuguese was lost in the sixteenth century when it became restricted to deictic locatives, thus making more salient (on empirical grounds) the particular link between the speaker/utterance-anchored deictic locatives and the middle field. Later on, movement of the T-related emphatic markers to the CP field became an available grammatical option giving rise to the EP sentence-internal metalinguistic negation markers and presumably to the type of rhetorical questions with lá that contemporary EP displays. As the data presented in section 12.3 show, an echoic use of the imperative in rhetorical questions in the sixteenth century made imperative sentences and rhetorical questions with lá somehow overlap. The sixteenth century type of rhetorical questions with lá must have been the source for the ulterior development of the type of rhetorical questions with lá found nowadays as well as the metalinguistic negation declaratives (both involving verb movement to C).15 Pragmatically, the connection between rhetorical questions and metalinguistic negation is unproblematic as rhetorical questions carry a negative implicature and at the same time have the evaluative import that is also present in denials. Structurally, the change that occurred after the sixteenth century corresponds to a further step in the ‘upward’ integration of lá-type deictic locatives in the functional system. The structure that I have in mind for metalinguistic negation declaratives with lá/cá is given in (42).16 I leave undecided here which are the particular functional projections of the CP field where the verb and lá/cá (i.e. the deictic locatives that are additionally emphatic and metalinguistic negation markers) independently move.17 15 I leave as a topic for future research the discussion of the structural differences between the contemporary and the sixteenth century type of rhetorical questions with lá (the latter presumably involving verb movement to S, like imperatives, not to C). 16 See Martins (2010, 2011) for further details. 17 Although the functional projections Eval(uative)P and Ass(ertion)P proposed by Ambar (2002) easily come to mind.

234

Ana Maria Martins

(42) a. Ele deu lá um carro à Maria. he gave lá a car to-the Maria b. [TopP [Ele]k [Top’ [CP2 [C2’ [C2 deui] [CP1 láj [C1’ [C1 deui] [SP [ele]k [S’ [S deui] [TP láj [T’ [T deui] [VP [ele]k deui um carro à Maria] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ‘He didn’t give Maria a car.’ (as a reaction to: ‘He gave Maria a car.’) Three types of arguments support the V-to-C analysis of metalinguistic negation declaratives with lá/cá. First, subject-verb inversion deriving the order VSO is extremely restricted with direct transitive verbs in EP. Nevertheless, metalinguistic negation declaratives with lá/cá allow it smoothly—contrast (43b.) with (44b.). Second, -ly adverbs like frequentemente ‘frequently’ may regularly appear in postverbal or preverbal position in declarative sentences, adjoining respectively to VP or TP (see Costa 1998), as illustrated by (45 A), but are excluded from the preverbal position in metalinguistic negation declaratives, as shown in (45 B). Third, the EP adverb bem ‘well’ is basically a manner adverb that adjoins to VP (see Costa 1998), but it may occur in a structurally higher position in which case it is devoid of the manner interpretation, displaying instead a modal import—contrast sentence (46a.), where the manner adverb bem appears in postverbal position, with sentences (46b.-c.), which show the modal bem in preverbal position. Revealingly, metalinguistic negation declaratives may display the word order ‘verb-lá-subj-bem’, where bem is not a manner adverb (see 47). This word order demonstrates that the subject is outside VP. Moreover, since the modal bem regularly appears in preverbal position when the verb is in T, the subject in (47) must be placed in Spec,SP (which according to the view on EP clause-structure proposed in this chapter is the regular position for the subject when it moves out of the VP). Therefore, as both the verb and lá precede the subject in (47), they must have moved to C, which supports the structural analysis given in (42b.). (43)

(44)

a. O the

meu my

irmão brother

não not

perdia would-miss

uma a

oportunidade opportunity

destas. of-these

b. *?Não perdia o meu irmão uma oportunidade not would-miss the my brother a opportunity ‘My brother wouldn’t miss an opportunity like that.’

destas. of-these

a. O the

oportunidade opportunity

destas. of-these

b. Perdia lá/cá o meu irmão uma oportunidade would-miss lá/cá the my brother a opportunity ‘My brother wouldn’t miss an opportunity like that.’

destas. of-these

meu my

irmão brother

perdia would-miss

lá/cá lá/cá

uma a

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation (45)

A: a. O the

João João

fica stays

frequentemente em frequently at

b. O João frequentemente fica the João frequently stays ‘John stays at home often.’ B: a. O the

João João

fica lá/cá stays lá/cá

a. O Pedro falou the Pedro spoke ‘Pedro spoke well.’

casa. home casa. home

frequentemente frequently

b. *O João frequentemente fica the João frequently stays ‘John doesn’t stay at home often.’ (46)

em at

235

em at

casa. home

lá/cá em lá/cá at

casa. home

bem. well

b. Bem disse o Pedro que era verdade. bem said the Pedro that was true ‘Pedro was right in saying that it was true.’ c. Ele bem sabe que é verdade. he bem knows that is true ‘He definitely knows that it is true’. / ‘I’m sure that he knows that it is true.’ (47)

Sei lá know-1sg lá

eu I

bem bem

se if

isso that

é is

verdade. true

12.5 Conclusion This chapter discusses the diachronic emergence of a typologically rare type of sentence-internal unambiguous metalinguistic negation markers. It is shown that the deictic locatives lá ‘there’/cá ‘here’ entered the functional system as T-related emphatic markers, which later developed into C-related elements associated with rhetorical questions or expressing metalinguistic negation.18 As each step of the diachronic pathway from ordinary deictic locatives to metalinguistic negation markers did not result in the loss of former grammatical properties, the words lá/cá in contemporary European Portuguese are cumulatively deictic locatives, emphatic markers, and metalinguistic negation markers. The diachronic change displayed by lá/cá can therefore be thought of as a case of pragmaticization, which follows the same type of ‘upward’ integration in the functional system as grammaticalization, in the sense of Roberts and Roussou (2003). 18 On the relevance of the category ‘deictic’ for the C-T system in the syntax of European Portuguese, see Costa and Martins (2011).

236

Ana Maria Martins

Under the perspective adopted in this chapter, the crucial property of EP grammar that lies behind the development of the deictic locatives lá/cá into metalinguistic negation markers is the particular nature of Spec,TP as a dedicated utterance-time (UT-T) position (see Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 2000). This property of the T domain in EP allows argumental deictic locatives to undergo middle scrambling, moving from VP to Spec,TP. It also allows direct merger of non-argumental deictic locatives in Spec,TP, which results in bleaching of the locative meaning and gives visibility to the UT-T position, producing the effect of emphasis (understood as the grammatical manifestation of the speaker at utterance-time). Further movement of lá/cá to the CP field results in the total invisibility of the locative meaning, while the emphatic import is preserved in some way or other and additional meaning arises. The emergence of lá/cá as emphatic markers in the sixteenth century is presumably related to the parametric change that at the same period led to the loss of generalized IP-scrambling (Martins 2002). This change limited the availability of middle scrambling to deictic locatives (Costa and Martins 2009, 2010), hence making particularly salient (on empirical grounds) the relation between the deictic locatives and Spec,TP. Emphatic markers can be associated with different sentence types. Once the emphatic markers lá/cá were available in declarative and imperative sentences, their use extended to questions through the very particular type of rhetorical questions echoing imperatives which were illustrated in section 12.3. Rhetorical questions must have been the cornerstone for the final step of the change, leading to the emergence of lá/cá as metalinguistic negation markers. On the one hand, rhetorical questions necessarily activate the CP domain (see Poletto and Obenauer 2000, Obenauer 2006, among others) and would be the vehicle for the upward movement of lá/cá from the TP to the CP domain. On the other hand, because rhetorical questions introduce negative implicatures, they are the natural source for the polarity import of metalinguistic negation lá/cá.19

Historical data Corpora CARDS – Cartas Desconhecidas/Unknown Letters – http://alfclul.clul.ul.pt/cards-fly/ (CARDS) Corpus Histórico Tycho Brahe – http://www.tycho.iel.unicamp.br/tycho/corpus/ (CHTB)

19 On the development of locative pronouns into negative markers in Bantu languages, see Devos, Kasombo Tshibanda, and van der Auwera (2010).

Deictic locatives, emphasis, and metalinguistic negation

237

Corpus do Português (1300s–1900s), Mark Davies and Michael Ferreira (2006- ) – http://www.corpusdoportugues.org. (CP) Other sources Gil Vicente, Todas as Obras. CD-ROM (GV) D. Francisco Manuel de Mello, Auto do Fidalgo Aprendiz, Lisboa, 1676. (FA)

13 Negative changes: three factors and the diachrony of Afrikaans negation THERESA BIBERAUER AND HEDDE ZEIJLSTRA

13.1 Introduction This chapter focuses on variation in the Afrikaans negation system, at least some of which appears to have arisen during the course of the twentieth century. Our central contention is that standard Afrikaans (henceforth: Afrikaans A) instantiates a typologically highly unusual negation system, one which raises particularly challenging questions in the domain of learnability conceived in generative terms, and thus also about successful transmission across successive generations. The negation system of one variety of modern colloquial Afrikaans (henceforth: Afrikaans B) departs from the standard system in at least two respects, one of which is also attested in pre-standardization Afrikaans, while the other appears to be a relatively recent innovation. Our objective is, first, to offer an overview of the relevant empirical facts; second, to offer a feature-based generative analysis of the synchronically attested Afrikaans A and B systems; and finally, to consider how the variations on the standard pattern might have arisen, placing learnability considerations and Chomsky’s (2005) ‘three factors’ model centre-stage. We argue that the Afrikaans A negation system constitutes a system which cannot be acquired solely on the basis of the input an acquirer will be exposed to, and that we might consequently expect the negation component of Afrikaans A to be unstable, as indeed it is. Our overall objective in this chapter, then, is to offer an illustration of a linguistic system which can meaningfully be characterized as unstable and therefore as likely to give rise to variation and, under the right circumstances, change. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 13.2 introduces the empirical facts; Section 13.3 situates the A and B varieties of Afrikaans in the standardly accepted generative typology of Negative Concord (NC) languages (cf. i.a. Giannakidou 2000, 2006), highlighting the fact that the Afrikaans A negation system does not fit into this typology, but that the feature-based proposal of Zeijlstra (2004, 2008) leads us to

Negative changes

239

expect the existence of this type of NC system, allowing us to characterize it in what might be thought of as ‘parametric terms’; Section 13.4 is devoted to considering the possible routes via which the variation attested in Afrikaans B might have arisen, ultimately concluding that it is in part the consequence of the learnability challenge posed by the Afrikaans A system, a conclusion which also allows us to understand the non-standard negation patterns attested in pre-standardization Afrikaans; finally, Section 13.5 concludes.

13.2 Variation in Afrikaans negation: introducing varieties A and B Standard Afrikaans/Afrikaans A is a language with a relatively short history, having only been codified in 1925. Whereas many of its properties recognizably reflect those of its Germanic ancestry, specifically, the various contemporary varieties of Dutch exported to the Cape of Good Hope in the latter half of the seventeenth century (cf. Ponelis 1993 and Roberge 1994 for overview discussion), its negation system very strikingly departs both from the Dutch norm as it is now and, as den Besten (1986) and Roberge (2000) convincingly show, from the systems that were introduced to the Cape in the seventeenth century and subsequently. Whereas standard Dutch is a so-called Double Negation (DN) language, in which each negator contributes its own semantic negation, with the result that two negators will be interpreted as conveying a form of positive meaning (though see Horn 1989 for further discussion, and see also Section 13.3.2 below), Afrikaans A exhibits NC. The relevant difference is shown in (1)–(2) below:1 (1)

a. Ik begrijp nooit dat argument niet I understand never that argument neg ‘I never don’t understand that argument’ i.e. ‘I always understand that argument’ (2 negative forms ! 2 negative meanings) b. Ek het nooit die argument verstaan nie I have never the argument understand2 neg ‘I have never understood the argument’ (2 negative forms ! 1 negative meaning)

(2)

a. Niemand begrijpt het argument no-one understands the argument ‘No-one understands the argument’ (1 negative form ! 1 negative meaning)

Dutch

Afrikaans

Dutch

1 Negative markers are systematically glossed as neg throughout the chapter. The rationale for this convention becomes clear in Section 13.3.2.1. 2 The non-agreeing glosses given for Afrikaans in this chapter reflect the fact that this language does not distinguish different verb forms morphologically, another respect in which it differs from its parent.

240

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra b. Niemand verstaan die argument nie nobody understand the argument neg ‘No-one understands the argument’ (2 negative forms ! 1 negative meaning)

Afrikaans

As the (b) examples show, Afrikaans A systematically requires a clause-final negation element to occur with elements contributing to sentential negation. This is true regardless of whether the elements are negative indefinites (NIs) as in (1b.) and (2b.) above or negative markers (NMs) as in (3): (3)

Hy sal nie verstaan he shall not understood ‘He won’t understand’

nie neg

As (3) shows, the clause-internal Afrikaans NM—which occupies approximately the same position as its Dutch source (cf. Hij zal niet verstaan)—is superficially identical to the clause-final negation marker. This final element is also prescriptively required in fragmentary answers (4), although it is in practice often omitted by speakers of this variety, who, when questioned, state that both options are acceptable; it may therefore be more accurate to view final nie in fragmentary answers as an optional element.3 Furthermore, it also required where negative constituents are focus-fronted (5; CAPITALS indicate intonationally focused elements) and in constituent negation structures more generally (6): (4)

Wie het my boek gesien? who has my book seen? ‘Who has seen my book?’

Niemand Nobody ‘No-one’

(nie) neg

(5)

Nie die BOEK nie, maar die TYDSKRIF het neg the book neg but the magazine has ‘Not the BOOK, but the MAGAZINE he read’

(6)

Moeder Mother lae layers ‘Mother

hy he

gelees read

Natuur het vir nie minder nie as drie beskermende Nature have for neg less neg than three protective gesorg cared Nature provided no less than three protective layers’ (cf. Donaldson 1993: 410)

3 To the best of our knowledge, prescriptive grammars are silent on the question of the structure of fragmentary answers. They do, however, highlight the need for clause-final nie in negated sentences and this requirement is also foregrounded in school and other normative contexts. We return to the significance of this point in sections 13.4.2 and 13.4.3 below.

Negative changes

241

One type of clause-internal negative constituent that it may not co-occur with, however, is the class of clause-internal NIs: (7)

Hy het niks (*nie) gekoop he have nothing neg bought ‘He has bought nothing’

nie neg

Based on the above facts, Afrikaans A appears to be a strict NC language of the type defined by Giannakidou (2000, 2006): every NM and NI must be accompanied by a further negation marker, clause-final nie, with even the NIs surfacing in fragmentary answers being compatible with this marker (contrast other strict NC languages where NIs—or n-words as they are, following Laka (1990 1994), more commonly referred to—may occur independently of the otherwise obligatory concord marker in fragmentary answers). We would therefore expect it also to exhibit NC wherever two NIs co-occur. As (8) illustrates, however, this is not the case: (8)

a. Niemand het niks gesien nie nobody have nothing seen neg ‘No-one saw nothing’, i.e. ‘Everyone saw something’ b. Ek verkoop nooit niks nie I sell never nothing neg ‘I never sell nothing’, i.e. ‘I always sell something’

Worth noting about these structures is that they require a special intonation pattern—the so-called contradiction contour of Liberman and Sag (1974). We return to this point in Section 13.3.2.1 below. What is worth noting here is that Afrikaans A has, in descriptive terms, retained Dutch’s DN pattern where combinations of NIs are concerned, whereas it has developed an NC pattern wherever clausal or constituent negation is at issue. Strikingly, a colloquial variety of Afrikaans spoken in particular by younger speakers, but seemingly rather widespread among modern-day speakers of the language generally, differs from Afrikaans A in that (8)-type structures deliver NC readings. In this variety (Afrikaans B), (8a.) therefore means ‘No-one saw anything’, while (8b.) means ‘I never sell anything’, just as corresponding sentences in, for example West Flemish would (cf. Haegeman 1995). This variety further differs from Afrikaans A in that it makes more liberal use of the final nie illustrated in (1b.) and (2b.): whereas final nie in Afrikaans A is limited to clause-final position, barring the constituent negation cases illustrated in (5)–(6), this nie may surface in all of these cases, and, additionally, follow clause-internal NIs in Afrikaans B. Thus (7)-type structures are well-formed in Afrikaans B; (9) illustrates: (9)

a. Hy is nooit (nie) tevrede he is never neg satisfied ‘He is NEVER satisfied’

nie neg

242

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

As the translation indicates, the presence of the additional nie, an optional element, results in a more emphatic negation. To summarize, then, modern spoken Afrikaans presents us with (at least) two different negation systems, one of which, Afrikaans A, does not appear to fit into the existing generative typology of NC languages, and the other of which, Afrikaans B, which appears to be the innovative variety, does. The first of our theoretical proposals is that these varieties can be understood within the context of the generative analysis of negation systems put forth by Zeijlstra (2004, 2008). This is the focus of the next section.

13.3 A formal analysis of Afrikaans varieties A and B 13.3.1 Theoretical background 13.3.1.1 Giannakidou’s (2000, 2006) typology of negation types Before we turn to the specifics of Zeijlstra’s analysis, it will be useful to summarize the typology of negation systems proposed by Giannakidou (2000, 2006). In terms of this typology, a broad distinction can be drawn between Double Negation (DN) and Negative Concord (NC) languages, with every morphosyntatically negative element crucially corresponding to a semantic negation in the former (cf. the Afrikaans A examples in (8)). In NC languages, by contrast, multiple morphosyntactically negative elements may yield a reading that results in only a single semantic negation (cf. the Afrikaans B interpretations of (8) and also cases like those given in (10)): (10)

a. No-one ‘No-one

took took

nothin’ anything’

NC varieties of English

b. Ninguém disse nada (a ninguém) said n-thing to n-one n-one4 ‘No-one said anything to anyone’ c. Nin kacur ka mudi no dog neg bite ‘No dog bit any cat’

nin gatu no cat

European Portuguese

Creole Portuguese5

According to Giannakidou (2000, 2006), NC languages can be classified into two types: strict and non-strict NC languages. In strict NC languages, every NI (¼nword; see note 4) must be accompanied by a negative marker (NM), regardless of its clausal position; otherwise the sentence is ungrammatical. Czech instantiates a language of this type, as (11) shows: 4 NIs which do not always contribute an independent semantic negation to the structures in which they occur—i.e. n-words in Laka’s (1990/1994) terms—are systematically glossed with the prefix n- to mark the fact that they differ from NIs in DN systems. 5 This is the variety spoken in Guinea-Bissau variety (cf. Holm and Patrick 2007: 67).

Negative changes (11)

a. Milan *(ne) vidi nikoho Milan neg.saw n-body ‘Milan didn’t see anybody’

243 Czech

b. Nikdo *(ne) volá n-body neg.calls ‘Nobody is calling’ In non-strict NC languages, but contrast, only postverbal n-words must be accompanied by the NM, preverbal n-words are not (neutrally) allowed to combine with the NM. We illustrate on the basis of Italian: (12)

a. Gianni* (non) ha telefonato Gianni neg has called ‘Gianni didn’t call anybody’

a nessuno to n-body

b. Ieri nessuno (*non) ha telefonato yesterday n-body neg has called ‘Yesterday nobody called anybody’

Italian

(a nessuno) to n-body

In the context of this typology, it is clear that Afrikaans B instantiates a strict NC system, but it is not obvious what Afrikaans A would be, given the non-NC behaviour of its NIs. We return to this matter in Section 13.3.2 below. The rest of Section 13.3.1 introduces Zeijlstra’s (2004, 2008) formal analysis of the negation typology outlined above. 13.3.1.2 Zeijlstra’s (2004, 2008) formal analysis of negation Drawing on Minimalist feature theory, specifically that centred on feature interpretability (distinguishing uninterpretable features ([uF]) from interpretable features ([iF]) rather than feature valuation (distinguishing valued features from unvalued features) as in Chomsky’s (2001 et seq.) probe-goal theory, Zeijlstra (op.cit.) proposes a feature-based analysis of Giannakidou’s typology. The key ingredients in Zeijlstra’s analysis of NC are that: (13)

a. n-words carry a feature [uNEG] that needs to be checked against a higher negative operator, which may be either overt or covert, but which crucially bears [iNEG], i.e. n-words themselves are semantically non-negative; b. sentential negation must be formally represented at the vP boundary or higher; and c. the absence of an overt element carrying [iNEG], required to check the [uNEG] feature associated with n-words, leads the language-acquiring child to postulate an abstract negative operator (this follows an idea going back to Ladusaw (1992)).

On this analysis, the difference between strict and non-strict NC languages reduces to the feature that the NM carries: in non-strict NC languages, the NM

244

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

carries [iNEG], whereas in strict NC languages, the NM carries [uNEG]. We illustrate schematically, once again using Czech and Italian to illustrate:6

(14) a. Op¬[iNEG]nevolá [uNEG]nikdo[uNEG]

Czech (Strict NC)

b. Op¬[iNEG]nikdo[uNEG]nevolá[uNEG]

c. Op¬[iNEG]nikdo[uNEG] nevolá[uNEG]nikoho[uNEG]7

(15) a. Gianni non[iNEG] ha telefonato a nessuno[uNEG]

Italian (Non-strict NC)

b. ∗ Nessuno[uNEG]non[iNEG] ha telefonato a nessuno[uNEG] c.

Op¬[iNEG]

nessuno [uNEG] ha telefonato a nessuno[uNEG]

The reasoning here is that Czech acquirers will anlayse ne- as [uNEG] since it always co-occurs with n-words without inducing a further semantic negation (cf. (14a.,b.) both when it is c-commanded by an n-word and when it c-commands one. Since multiple NIs also do not result in DN structures (cf. (14c.)), these elements are also analysed as [uNEG] bearers, i.e. as n-words. The locus of semantic negation in all Czech sentences, then, is postulated to be an abstract negative operator. In the Italian case, the combination of (15a.) and (15c.)-type input structures will once again lead acquirers to analyse NIs as [uNEG] elements (n-words). In combination, these structures also alert the acquirer to the fact that the analysis of the NM non must be different from that of Czech ne-:8 unlike Czech ne, the surface position of Italian non always coincides with the locus of semantic negation. Consequently, the child hypothesizes that the lexical inventory of Italian entails two [iNEG] markers: overtly realized non, which surfaces wherever n-words are limited to postverbal positions, 6

As the diagrams clearly show, Zeijlstra’s analysis assumes that a single interpretable feature can check multiple uninterpretable features. In this respect, it is similar to the Multiple Agree analyses proposed by i.a. Ura (1996), Hiraiwa (2001, 2005), and Bejar and Rezac (2009); see, however, Haegeman and Lohndal (2010) who argue that Multiple Agree reduces to multiple instances of binary Agree. 7 See note 13 on the question of the location of the abstract negative operator assumed in structures lacking an overtly realized [iNEG] element. 8 It should be noted that this statement is formulated from the perspective of the comparative linguist, and that we are not suggesting that the Italian-acquiring child is in fact comparing the Italian input it receives to other systems it might hypothesize or indeed to others which might in some sense be present as part of its innate Universal Grammar. See Section 13.4.4 for further discussion of the role of UG in our proposals.

Negative changes

245

and a covertly realized abstract operator, which is postulated to be present wherever preverbal n-words surface without non. Returning our attention to the overall typology of negation types proposed by Giannakidou (2000, 2006), we see that Zeijlstra’s system captures the different types as in (16): (16)

a. the difference between DN and NC languages depends on the semantic value of NIs: in NC languages, they carry [uNEG], whereas in DN languages they are semantically negative (see Section 13.4.4 for further discussion). b. the difference between strict and non-strict NC languages is dependent on the semantic value of the NM: [iNEG] in non-strict NC languages and [uNEG] in strict NC languages.

Represented in tabular form, we see that Zeijlstra’s formal analysis gives the following typology of negative systems: (17)

N-words semantically N-words semantically negative non-negative Negative markers DN languages: Dutch, Non-strict NC languages: semantically negative German, Swedish Spanish, Italian, Portuguese Negative markers semantically nonnegative

???

Strict NC languages: Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Greek, Afrikaans B

As (17) shows, Zeijlstra’s typology features a gap, raising the question of whether there are languages with [uNEG] NMs and [iNEG] NIs. Biberauer and Zeijlstra (in press) argue that Afrikaans A, which, recall, does not have a place in Giannakidou’s typology, instantiates a system of this type. In the following section, we will show how this analysis appears to be correct for Afrikaans A, whereas the strict NC analysis allows us to understand the properties of Afrikaans B. 13.3.2 A formal analysis of the properties of Afrikaans A and Afrikaans B 13.3.2.1 Afrikaans A If NIs bear [iNEG], as suggested at the end of Section 13.3.1.2, we expect every combination of two NIs to yield a DN reading. As we saw in (8a.), repeated as (18) below, this is indeed the case. (18)

niks[iNEG] gesien nie[uNEG] Niemand[iNEG] het nobody have nothing seen neg DN: ‘No-one saw nothing’, i.e. ‘Everyone saw something’ a.

b.

Niemand[iNEG] het

niks[iNEG] gesien nie[uNEG]

246

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

By contrast, where an NI co-occurs with nie in sentence-final position, or in a fragmentary answer, only an NC reading is available. In formal terms, this can be thought of as the consequence of the checking relation that takes place between the n-word’s [iNEG] feature and the [uNEG] feature on nie. The relevant cases are schematized in (19)–(20) (cf. (2b.) and (4) above): (19)

die argument nie[uNEG] a. Niemand[iNEG] verstaan nobody understand the argument neg ‘Nobody understands the argument’ b. Niemand[iNEG] verstaan die argument nie[uNEG]

(20)

a. Wie het my boek gesien? who have my book seen? ‘Who has seen my book?’

Niemand[iNEG] nobody ‘No-one’

(nie[uNEG]) neg

b. Niemand[iNEG] (nie[uNEG])

The Afrikaans-acquiring child, then, has clear evidence for the [uNEG] value of final nie. In relation to medial nie—which Biberauer (2008a, 2009) refers to as the ‘real’ negator—three possible analyses suggest themselves: either (a) final and medial nie are the same lexical item, with the result that they both bear [uNEG], (b) final and medial nie are analysed as distinct lexical items which, however, both bear [uNEG], or (c) medial nie is analysed as a distinct lexical item, which differs from final nie in bearing [iNEG]. On the former analyses—which we will not distinguish between here—the child will postulate an abstract negative operator bearing [iNEG], just like the Czech-acquiring child; on the latter, medial nie will be [iNEG] like Italian non.9 As final nie is obligatory, regardless of the position of the NI, the child will opt for the former interpretation (see Biberauer and Zeijlstra 2011 for more detailed discussion of the acquisition of the featural specification of the Afrikaans nies). Crucially, this analysis, in terms of which both nies are [uNEG], renders Afrikaans A a system in which NMs bear [uNEG], while NIs carry [iNEG]. (21) illustrates the formal structure ascribed to a structure containing two nies on this analysis:

As noted in the main text, Biberauer (2008a, 2009) distinguishes between nie1 (the ‘real’ negator) and nie2 (the concord element), showing that the two elements behave very differently in respect of properties like omissibility, modifiability, and prosodic and lexical reinforcement. On the analysis in terms of which both nies are featurally identical (i.e. that proposed in Biberauer and Zeijlsta in press), these differences would not follow from a difference in the formal feature specification of these negative markers, but instead from a difference in respect of the position in which they are merged. See Biberauer (op.cit.) for discussion of the structural positions associated with medial and final nie respectively. 9

Negative changes (21)

247

a. Hy is nie moeg nie he is neg tired neg ‘He is not tired’ b. Hy is Op¬[iNEG] nie[uNEG] moeg nie[uNEG]]

One challenge that remains for this analysis is that a single NI co-occurring with two NMs does not yield an NC reading, even though both instances of nie are analysed as carrying [uNEG]; as (22) shows, only a DN reading is possible here: (22)

a. Niemand[iNEG] het nie[uNEG] die werk voltooi nie[uNEG] nobody have neg the work completed neg DN: ‘Nobody hasn’t completed the work’, i.e. ‘Everyone completed the work’ *NC: ‘Nobody completed the work’

On the analysis in terms of which medial nie bears [iNEG], the DN reading follows straightforwardly, so one might conclude that (22)-type structures constitute the crucial evidence for the Afrikaans-acquiring child that there are in fact two nies, with medial nie being [iNEG] and only final nie being [uNEG]. Worth noting, however, is a very important fact about the contexts in which (22)-type structures occur: they can only be uttered felicitously in contexts where a speaker rejects a negative presupposition uttered previously in the conversation, notably denial contexts (cf. Horn 1985, 1989 for an extensive discussion of the difference between negation and denial). At least one of the negative elements in structures of this type requires focal stress: (23)

a. NIEMAND het nie die werk voltooi nie b. Niemand het NIE die werk voltooi nie c. NIEMAND het NIE die werk voltooi nie, etc.10

The same is true for cases in which the NI is a non-subject: (24)

a. Ek het vir NIEMAND nie ‘n boek gekoop nie I have for no-one neg a book bought neg ‘There’s no-one I didn’t buy a book for’, i.e. ‘I bought a book for everyone’ b. Ek het vir niemand NIE ‘n boek gekoop nie, etc.

10 Worth noting is that it is only medial nie that can be focused in denial structures (cf. Biberauer 2008a for discussion), and also that it is also possible to focus appropriate non-negative elements alongside a focused negative element. This latter scenario is illustrated in (i) below:

(i) NIEMAND het nie die werk VOLTOOI nie, maar daar was EEN student nobody have neg the work completed neg but there was one student wat laat INgehandig het what late in-handed have ‘NOBODY didn’t COMPLETE the work, but there was ONE student who SUBMITTED late’

248

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

Crucially, niemand and the adjacent nie need to be in separate prosodic phrases in this case. The significance of this fact will become clear in Section 13.3.2.2 below. Returning to the question of how the denial status of structures like (22)–(24) is relevant in determining what Afrikaans-acquiring children will conclude about the featural composition of the two nies, we note two central points, one distributional and the other relating to the formal representation of these structures. First, DN structures like those in (22)–(24) have often been observed to occur very rarely in actual usage, and so we might expect them not to constitute a salient part of the input to which an Afrikaans-acquiring child is exposed. If these structures do not play a significant role in the primary linguistic data (PLD) on the basis of which the child acquires the Afrikaans negation system, the alternative possibilities vis-à-vis the featural composition of the two nies remain in play. We return to this matter in Section 13.4.3 below. Second, on the formal front, it has often been observed that focal intonation ‘seals off ’ focused elements from the rest of the structure in which they occur, i.e. from their usual licensing domain (cf. Haegeman and Zanuttini 1991 for earlier observation of this phenomenon, and i.a. Corblin et al. 2004, Blaszczak and Gärtner 2005, Biberauer 2009, and Biberauer and Zeijlstra in press for subsequent discussions and references). In formal terms, this insight could be taken to entail the presence of additional structure—which we may informally label a FocusPhrase—which PF interprets as an instruction to prosodically isolate the relevant elements from the prosodic phrase which it would otherwise be part of, and which, viewed in phasal terms, may in fact be taken to be an independent strong phase, i.e. a structural unit deriving from a lexical array which is integrated with the clause in which it appears as an already-spelled-out unit, opaque to further checking/valuing operations.11 On the assumption that a given structural domain can only be successfully spelled-out at the point at which all of its features are interpretable/valued, it is clear that focused elements must contain all the elements required to check/value uninterpretable/unvalued features.12 Let us now see how this enables us to understand the Afrikaans DN patterns. Consider, first, the case of the focused NI illustrated in (24a.). (26) gives a formal representation of this structure: (26) Ek het Op¬[iNEG] vir [FOCUS niemand [iNEG]] nie[uNEG] ‘n boek gekoop nie[uNEG] I

II

11 Note that if the label of a syntactic object simply corresponds to its constituent features, an alreadyspelled-out/opaque XP will still be available as a checker/goal for a higher head bearing uninterpretable/ unvalued features. Thus T could still check/probe the f-features of a focused subject DP, even if it has been spelled-out and therefore constitutes an island for the purposes of extraction, etc: the assumption is that interpretable/valued features of spelled-out XPs are accessible via the label. 12 But see (amongst others) Sauerland and Elbourne (2002) for a view that allows phases not to be fully interpretable at LF.

Negative changes

249

In (26), niemand cannot serve as the [iNEG]-bearing element that checks the [uNEG] features on the nies in this case because it is ‘sealed off ’ within its own focus domain (contrast niemand in (20), for example). An abstract negative operator therefore needs to be merged to license the negative markers, in the same way that an abstract negative operator is required in negative structures lacking n-words (e.g. (21)). Consequently, we get two independent negations—I associated with the sentential negator and II with niemand—and thus DN. The same holds for (23a.), as shown below:

(27)

[FOCUS Niemand [iNEG]] het Op¬[iNEG] nie[uNEG] die werk voltooi nie[uNEG]13 I

II

(23b.) follows the same pattern, with the difference that focus-driven isolation of the [uNEG]-bearing negative marker entails the usual requirement that holds in domains in which [uNEG]-bearing elements are merged independently of an [iNEG] element, namely merger of an [iNEG]-bearing abstract negative operator. This is illustrated in (28):

(28) Niemand [iNEG] het [FOCUS Op¬[iNEG] NIE[uNEG]] die werk voltooi nie[uNEG] I

II

What we have seen in this section, then, is that the assumption that NIs in Afrikaans A carry [iNEG], while nie carries [uNEG], correctly predicts the patterns that we observe. It would therefore appear that the ‘missing type’ in Zeijlstra’s featurally defined typology of negation systems is in fact attested, and that it may be necessary to allow for partial NC languages. The few cases that seem to challenge this analysis entail denial contexts, which involve focused negative elements, i.e. negative elements ‘sealed off ’ from the clauses in which they occur, and which therefore have independent licensing conditions. As these DN denial structures are 13 The precise location of the abstract [iNEG]-bearing negative operator is not crucial here. We indicate it as having been merged at the edge of vP as this is the lowest point at which sentential negation may be semantically represented in terms of Zeijlstra’s theory (cf. (13b.) above). If a phasal domain is only semantically well-formed if its operator-related features have been checked/valued, there may additionally be a phasally motivated rationale for merging the operator in this position. This latter view would, however, also entail that relevant types of wh-phrases (i.e. those bearing [uWH] features) would need to be checked/valued within vP. If recent work by Rackowski and Richards (2005) and den Dikken (2009) is on the right track, this may in fact be correct (possibly even universally). Italian-type languages in which [iNEG] (spelled out as non) is clearly merged higher than vP (cf. Zanuttini 1997) superficially pose a challenge for this proposal. If the phase sliding and phase extension proposals of Gallego (2007, 2010) and den Dikken (2006) respectively are on the right track, however, this challenge may, once again, only be apparent. We leave these very interesting questions to future research as all that matters for the present discussion is that an abstract negative operator needs to be represented within each independent structural domain featuring one or more [uNEG] elements.

250

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

generally recognized to be very rarely attested, it naturally follows that they play little or no role in the acquisition of the Afrikaans negation system. Our next concern will be to establish the formal properties of the more innovative Afrikaans B in the context of Zeijlstra’s system. 13.3.2.2 Afrikaans B (29)

Recall that Afrikaans A and Afrikaans B differ in two respects:

a. whether multiple NIs deliver NC readings, i.e. exhibit Negative Spread (cf. den Besten 1986), or not (no: Afrikaans A; yes: Afrikaans B) b. the distribution of final nie, namely whether it may follow clause-internal NIs or not (no: Afrikaans A; yes: Afrikaans B).

Formally, the only difference between varieties A and B is that NIs in the latter bear [uNEG] rather than [iNEG], i.e. they are n-words. Consequently, multiple NIs/ n-words deliver only a single semantic negation, and the Afrikaans B counterpart of (18) is interpreted as an NC structure. This is illustrated in (30): (30)

niks[uNEG] gesien nie[uNEG] a. Niemand[uNEG] het n-body have n-thing seen neg NC: ‘Nobody saw anything’ b. [Op¬[iNEG] Niemand[uNEG] het niks[uNEG] gesien nie[uNEG]]

Thus Afrikaans B is a strict NC language in which all NIs and NMs are semantically non-negative, with an abstract negative operator always inducing the semantic negation.14 Importantly, DN structures are also possible in Afrikaans B; as in Afrikaans A, they, however, require very specific intonational marking, necessarily exhibiting the so-called contradiction contour intonation pattern. Once again, then, DN readings result as a consequence of the ‘sealing off ’ effects discussed in section 13.3.2.1. (31) illustrates the contrast between an NC and a DN structure in Afrikaans B:

14 Further evidence that Afrikaans B is a strict NC language comes from the fact that it has innovated a reinforcing negation structure—g’n niks (‘no nothing’)—in which two negative elements serve to express a single negation (cf. Biberauer 2009, Huddlestone 2010). This innovation very obviously parallels what we see in NC varieties of English, as (ii) shows:

(i)

(ii)

Hy is g’n niks tevrede nie! he is no n-thing satisfied neg ‘He isn’t remotely satisfied’ He ain’t gonna do no nothin’ to help!

Negative changes

251

(31) a. [Op¬[iNEG] Niemand[uNEG] gee my niks[uNEG] nie[uNEG] ] n-one give me n-thing NEG I ‘No-one gives me anything’ – NC reading; no special intonation required b. [Op¬[iNEG] Niemand[uNEG] gee my [FOCUS Op¬[iNEG] NIKS[uNEG] ] nie[uNEG] ] give me n-thing NEG n-one I II ‘No-one gives me nothing’ – DN reading; special intonation required As the formal structures indicate, the ‘sealing off’ effect of focus requires the postulation of an additional negative operator. Since it is not just NMs, but also NIs/ n-words which bear [uNEG] in Afrikaans B, ‘sealing off’ of any negative elements requires the postulation of an extra negative operator, i.e. all focused negative elements will be contained within domains (phases) containing an abstract negative operator bearing [iNEG], not just the NMs as in Afrikaans A (see (28)). Afrikaans B, then, is in a sense a more regular variety than Afrikaans A, with all negative elements behaving in the same manner. We return to this point in Section 13.5.4 below. Let us now consider the second property distinguishing Afrikaans A from Afrikaans B, namely the freer distribution of final nie in terms of which it may follow NIs (n-words in this variety) not only clause-finally, but also clause-medially. This development also follows naturally from the fact that nie bears [uNEG] in Afrikaans B. Specifically, this variety has simply extended the range of structural domains in which nie may surface finally: whereas Afrikaans A permits constituent negation structures to feature final nie (cf. (5)–(6) above), Afrikaans B additionally permits n-words to do so. As Biberauer (2009) observes, this could be thought of as a type of ‘sub-Jespersen’s Cycle’, affecting sub-clausal constituents in the same way as negative reinforcement affects the sentential negator at Stage II of the Cycle originally considered by Jespersen (1917). The relevant parallel is schematized in (32), with the optional reinforcement stage, which appears to have arisen in the sub-clausal domain in Afrikaans B, highlighted in bold: (32)

a. ‘Traditional’ Jespersen’s Cycle: Stage I: NEG1 Stage II: NEG1 . . . . (NEG2) Stage III: NEG1 . . . NEG2 Stage IV: (NEG1) . . . NEG2 Stage V: NEG2

ne ne . . . (pas) ne . . . pas (ne) . . . pas pas

b. Sub-Jespersen’s Cycle in Afrikaans: Stage I: nooit (‘never’)/niks (‘nothing’)/niemand (‘nobody’), etc. Stage II: nooit (nie)/niks (nie)/niemand (nie), etc. Stage III: nooit nie/niks nie/niemand nie, etc.

252

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

In the case of cyclic developments in the non-clausal domain, we expect stages IV and V to be ruled out for functional reasons: if it were possible to omit the NI component of stage II structures, it would no longer be clear which NI was intended. Stage III, on the other hand, although it is not attested in any synchronic variety of Afrikaans is not, in principle, ruled out. Worth noting about extra nie-containing structures such as those in (9) above and (33) below is that they are crucially very different from the structures in (34): (33)

a. Ek het vir [niemand nie] ‘n boek I have for n-body neg a book NC: ‘I didn’t buy a book for anybody’ b. Hulle is [nêrens nie] gelukkig they is n-where neg happy ‘They aren’t happy anywhere’

gekoop bought

nie neg

Afrikaans B

nie neg

(34) a. Ek het vir [NIEMAND] nie ‘n boek gekoop nie Afrikaans A/B I have for nobody/n-body neg a book bought neg ‘There’s NOBODY I didn’t buy a book for’, i.e. ‘I bought a book for everyone’ b. Ek het vir niemand [NIE] ‘n boek gekoop nie I have for nobody/n-body neg a book bought neg ‘There is nobody for whom I DIDN’T buy a book’ The n-words and nie are within the same prosodic phrase in (33), whereas they crucially cannot be in (34), where there is always a necessary prosodic break between the adjacent negative elements. Given this crucial prosodic difference and the fact that n-words in Afrikaans B bear [uNEG], we therefore expect NC in the former case and DN in the latter. This is indeed the case. What we have seen in this section, then, is that the semantic differences between varieties A and B follow from the fact that NIs in Afrikaans A carry [iNEG], whereas they carry [uNEG] in Afrikaans B, thus behaving like n-words. Since NMs in both languages are [uNEG], at least following the analysis in Biberauer and Zeijlstra (in press), Afrikaans B emerges as a strict NC language. Having established this analysis, we now turn our attention to the question of the diachronic developments that led to the co-existence of Afrikaans A and B.

13.4 From Afrikaans A to Afrikaans B: the diachronic perspective and its wider implications 13.4.1 Introduction As we saw in the preceding section, the synchronic difference between varieties A and B lies in the featural make-up of their NIs: while Afrikaans A NIs are [iNEG],

Negative changes

253

their counterparts in Afrikaans B are [uNEG]. As Afrikaans B is a modern colloquial variety, the question in diachronic terms would seem to be how the reanalysis in (35) came about: (35)

NI [iNEG] ! NI [uNEG]

Since this change involves the loss of an interpretable formal feature, one might also wonder whether it in any way parallels the familiar Jespersen’s Cycle developments, in the context of which an originally negative element ultimately loses its ability to act independently as a negator. Furthermore, there is an additional question as to whether the change in (35) is in any way connected with the increased use of final nie in Afrikaans B. In relation to this question, three possibilities suggest themselves: (36)

a. Hypothesis I: The nie-related change happened first and created an appropriate environment for the n-word-related change. b. Hypothesis II: The n-word-related change happened first and created an appropriate environment for the nie-related change. c. Hypothesis III: The two changes are independent.

In the following sections, we will consider each hypothesis in turn, highlighting in particular the role of acquisition considerations and the manner in which these may be interpreted in the context of Chomsky’s (2005) ‘three factors’ approach. 13.4.2 Hypothesis I: the pathway from Afrikaans A to Afrikaans B In terms of this hypothesis, the extension of the permissible domains in which ‘extra’ final nies may occur to bring about an emphatic interpretation led to the reanalysis of NIs as [uNEG] elements. This proposal rests on the assumption that two types of input in particular would have been relevant in the reanalysis: (a) fragmentary answers, and, particularly, (b) emphatic structures featuring a clause-internal reinforcing ‘extra’ nie. We repeat examples of relevant structures below: (37)

a. A:

Wie het jou who have you.obl ‘Who helped you?’ B: Niemand (nie) n-one neg ‘No-one’

gehelp? helped

b. Moeder Natuur het vir nie minder nie as drie Mother Nature have for neg less neg than three beskermende lae gesorg (¼ (6)) layers cared protective ‘Mother Nature has provided no less than three protective layers’ (cf. Donaldson 1993: 410)

254

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

On the assumption that the extension of the use of sub-clausal/constituent negation-related nie to NIs simply represents the kind of overextension phenomenon that seems to arise very naturally in ordinary language use and that often plays a role in change (consider, for example, the overextensions involved in lexical items that ultimately become grammaticalized; cf. Hopper and Traugott (1993) for overview discussion), it is likely that the Afrikaans-acquiring child may interpret this overgeneralized input, alongside the fragment-answer data, as signalling the fact that NIs in Afrikaans are [uNEG]. This is because (s)he is presented with two distinct types of input in which NIs are immediately adjacent to nie, with the combination of these two negative elements giving rise to only a single negation reading, i.e. NC. This is schematized in (38): (38)

The role of extra nie: Input: [niemand nie]; [nooit nie]; [niks nie]; [nêrens nie]; etc. Child’s conclusion: the concord element nie signals the presence of a sentential negation [Op⌍[ineg]] outside the constituent [NI nie], rather than a constituent-internal negation. Since NIs thus effectively require an abstract concord element to be present in order to be licensed, they are in fact n-words and thus bear [uNEG].

That Afrikaans B speakers view NI þ nie combinations as constituents is clear from the fact that they permit these combinations to undergo fronting: (39)

NOOIT nie kom jy terug never neg come you back ‘You’re NEVER coming back!’

nie! neg

This hypothesis therefore seems to be plausible, allowing us to understand how Afrikaans A-type [iNEG] NIs might be reanalysed as Afrikaans B-type [uNEG] n-words: once acquirers have analysed [niemand nie], etc. as constituents exhibiting an NC relation, they assume the NI to be [uNEG]; once NIs have been reanalysed as [uNEG] elements, Afrikaans B is a strict NC language (both negative markers and n-words are [uNEG]), with the result that the NC facts in the n-word domain follow. Despite the plausibility of this hypothesis, however, it makes some problematic predictions. First, it leads us to expect that we may find Afrikaans speakers who do not produce Negative Spread structures, but who do overextend the use of final nie. This does not, however, seem to be the case. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: there appear to be speakers of modern Afrikaans who permit Negative Spread without producing NI þ nie structures. This is also true of the attrited Afrikaans

Negative changes

255

speakers living in Argentina15 and, even more interestingly, of Afrikaans speakers using the language during the nineteenth century. The following examples are from Roberge (2000: 126) (40) a. . . . an moet noeuait niks peraat ien die guslnie and must n-ver n-thing talk in the bath.neg ‘ . . . and must never say anything while in the bath’ [Abu Bakr, 1869] b. Mar Afrikaans, Engels, Frans, ens. het glad niks gen but Afrikaans English French etc. have absolutely nothing no verbuiging van die Naamvalle an die word self inflection of the cases of the word (it)self o’ergehou nie retained neg ‘But Afrikaans, English, French, etc. have retained absolutely no nominal inflection’ [Du Toit 1876: 13]16 That nineteenth century Afrikaans speakers were producing Negative Spread is particularly significant since these speakers would have been speaking pre-standardization Afrikaans (recall that Afrikaans was only standardized in 1925), and this variety did not have a systematic requirement that negative clauses end in nie: as Roberge (1994, 2000) observes, clause-final nie suddenly began to appear in negative clauses in the latter half of the nineteenth century, having previously been stigmatized as ‘unDutch’, ‘uneducated’, and similar. From the later 1800s, however, nationalist sentiments led promoters of the Afrikaans language to call for its recognition as a language distinct from Dutch, a language which had originated on African soil and which should therefore have the same rights as English, since 1806 the language of South Africa’s colonial masters. In this context, properties distinguishing Afrikaans from Dutch were accorded new significance, with the result that previously stigmatized final nie became enshrined as the prescriptive norm. Importantly, Negative Spread, another feature which was clearly in use in the nineteenth century and which would also have distinguished Afrikaans from Dutch, was not accorded standard status. As Beatrice Santorini (p.c.) points out, this may well reflect the fact that Negative Spread is so heavily stigmatized in varieties in which it does not constitute the norm. We return to the significance of these facts in the following section. For the moment, the key point is that NC use of 15

This observation is based on preliminary fieldwork among the so-called Patagonian Afrikaners of Argentina, some of whom do not systematically employ final nie even in the clausal domain. See Section 13.4.5 for further discussion. 16 This structure occurs in a text, written by one of the foremost figures of the Afrikaans Language Struggle (Afrikaanse Taalstryd) and a man who viewed himself as trilingual in English, Dutch, and Afrikaans. The text in question seeks to set out the formal properties of Afrikaans, arguing for one form over another where the language spoken at the time exhibited variation.

256

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

NIs in Afrikaans may clearly arise without the initial spread of reinforcing nie to the domain of NIs. While Hypothesis I therefore remains an in principle plausible account of how Afrikaans B could have arisen, it is clear that alternatives should also be considered. 13.4.3 Hypothesis II: an alternative pathway? In terms of the second hypothesis, the reanalysis of NIs as [uNEG]-bearing n-words preceded the extension of the domains in which nie occurs. The question that needs to be answered in this case is how Afrikaans A NIs could have come to be reanalysed? Worth noting again in this connection is the fact that Afrikaans A (standard Afrikaans) appears to be a highly unusual system crosslinguistically. Thus consider Bernini and Ramat (1996: 187), who observe that: (41)

‘A language having reached the final stage of the so-called “Jespersen’s Cycle” [i.e. Stage V in (32), repeated in elaborated form in (42) and (43) – TB/HZ] seems to be a necessary condition for its being N1 [i.e. having NIs which cannot enter into NC relations, as seen throughout standard Germanic – TB/HZ]’17,18

(42)

Stage I: Stage II: Stage III: Stage IV: Stage V:

NEG1 NEG1 . . . . (NEG2) NEG1 . . . NEG2 (NEG1) . . . NEG2 NEG2

(43)

Stage I: Stage II: Stage III:

nie(t)[iNEG] nie[iNEG] . . . (nie) nie[uNEG] . . . nie[uNEG]

ne ne . . . (pas) ne . . . pas (ne) . . . pas pas

nie nie . . . (nie) nie . . . nie

(spoken language—cf. Roberge 2000) (prescriptively imposed)

As (42)–(43) show, Afrikaans is clearly at stage III, showing no signs of continuing to stages IV or V, the final stage (cf. Biberauer 2009, 2012 for more detailed discussion). As such, co-occurring NIs should, according to Bernini and Ramat (1996), not systematically deliver the DN readings they do in Afrikaans A; what we expect instead is the behaviour exhibited by NIs in Afrikaans B, where multiple NIs deliver NC readings. In Zeijlstra’s terms, Afrikaans NIs should be [uNEG], rather than [iNEG] as would be the case in a DN language meeting Bernini and Ramat’s specifications. Standard Afrikaans, then, does not satisfy the necessary condition specified in (41) for being a DN language. Among so-called Bipartite Negation with Final Negator (BNF) languages—i.e. languages with discontinuous negation and involving a clause-final negator (cf. Bell 17 Note necessary, but not sufficient. Thus West Flemish, for example, does not constitute a counter example. 18 On different grounds and in different terms, this conclusion was also reached in Zeijlstra (2004).

Negative changes

257

2004)—it also appears, as far as we can establish, to be unique in failing to exhibit NC in the NI domain.19 Thus Afrikaans A is a peculiar hybrid, essentially a standard Germanic language, with a sentence-final nie requirement added to it. The question now is how children in fact acquire Afrikaans A. Let us first make the assumption that double-nie-containing structures in the PLD will lead the child to conclude that there is a single NM in the language, bearing [uNEG].20 Proceeding with the nie ¼ [uNEG] analysis, however, we note that the child will, for the most part (excluding fragment answers from which nie has been omitted), encounter NIcontaining structures ending in final nie. In principle, the NIs in such structures could be analysed either as [iNEG] or as [uNEG]: as all the cells in Zeijlstra’s typology of negation types are filled, it seems that we cannot postulate an implicational relation in terms of which the identification of [uNEG] NMs would automatically lead the child to postulate [uNEG] NIs.21 The question, then, is what data would enable the Afrikaans-acquiring child to decide what the value of [NEG] on NIs is? As we saw in Sections 13.3.2.1 and 13.3.2.2 above, DN structures are identical in varieties A and B (cf. (23)–(24) and (34)): both involve a characteristic intonational pattern. These data, then, will not prove decisive. Since structures featuring an NI and an any-type indefinite are also possible in NC varieties (cf. Italian (44a.)), the fact that the Afrikaans-acquiring child will encounter structures like (44b.) will, likewise, not resolve the uncertainty: (44)

a. Non ha visto alcunché neg has seen anybody ‘He didn’t see anybody’ b. Hy gee niemand enige iets he give n(o)-one any something ‘He gives no-one anything’

nie neg

Input that would allow the acquirer to make a definitive decision regarding the [uNEG] versus [iNEG] property of NIs is given in (45):

19 It is worth highlighting that this observation is based on a superficial consideration of a subset of the relevant languages and awaits systematic investigation. 20 As noted in Section 13.3.2.1, there is in fact also the possibility that acquirers will assume medial and final nie to be distinct lexical items, both bearing [uNEG]. As the featural property ([i/uNEG]) ascribed to the NMs is our primary concern here, we need not consider the single versus distinct lexical items proposals separately here. 21 In the context of the Minimalist Program, with its emphasis on a minimally specified UG, a question would, of course, arise as to how any such implicational relation might be represented in the mind of the acquirer. Ideally, if it is to guide acquisition, it should not be hard-wired, but, instead, derive from some generalized consideration of economy (cf. the discussion of Chomsky’s so-called third factor to follow in the main text).

258

(45)

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

Hy gee niemand niks he give n-one n-thing ‘He gives no-one anything’

nie neg

As soon as a child encounters structures like (45), in which multiple NIs deliver only a single negation reading, (s)he will know that (s)he is acquiring a system in which NIs are [uNEG]. This is unproblematic for the Afrikaans B-acquiring child since Afrikaans B is a system of this type, with the result that Afrikaans B speakers, like their Italian and Czech counterparts, will utter structures like (45). But this is precisely the PLD that will not be present in the input with which the Afrikaans A-acquiring child is confronted. In other words, this acquirer still does not have clearcut evidence as to the featural status of NIs in the language (s)he is acquiring. And it is not clear that there is in fact any evidence of this kind. We therefore conclude that Afrikaans A represents the type of system that cannot be fully acquired on the basis of the PLD alone. This clearly has consequences for the feasibility of Hypothesis II and, indeed, for any hypothesis, also including Hypothesis I, which simply assumes that the child would be able to acquire the [iNEG] specification of Afrikaans A NIs. Having established this much, we are therefore effectively back to Square One as regards the question of how an Afrikaans A system, from which Afrikaans B appears to have been innovated, might be acquired. In the following section, we consider this question against the broader background of Chomsky’s (2005) ‘third factor’ proposals. 13.4.4 Afrikaans A and the ‘three factors’ According to Chomsky (2005), there are three factors that enter into the creation of a steady-state grammar. These are given in (46): (46)

Factor I: UG Factor II: primary linguistic data (PLD/input) Factor III: third factor considerations (computational and acquisitional economy)

Factors I and II are, of course, familiar from earlier stages of the Chomskyan enterprise, but Factor III has specifically been the focus of attention in the context of the Minimalist Program. Rather than postulating a highly specified, ‘rich’ UG as in earlier periods, Minimalism seeks to reduce Factor I to its bare minimum, appealing to Factor III—at present, still a rather murky and ill-understood set of considerations, which have, however, been generally characterized as follows: (47)

a. principles of data analysis that might be used in acquisition; and b. principles of structural architecture and developmental constraints (Chomsky 2005)

Negative changes

259

(47a.) explicitly foregrounds principles that may play a role in language acquisition (e.g. the Subset Principle of Berwick (1985), if this can be usefully formulated in some way; Lightfoot’s (1989) Degree Zero Learnability, if this is thought of as a strategy applied by acquirers, Roberts’ (2007) Generalization of the Input, etc.). The proposal that Factor III may in fact determine many of the crosslinguistic regularities previously ascribed to UG clearly has highly significant consequences for, among other things, the parametric enterprise (cf. Biberauer 2008b, Roberts and Holmberg 2010 and Boeckx 2011 for recent discussion) and also for our understanding of the nature of what acquirers might be drawing on in order to interpret the PLD to which they are exposed. As this chapter has, as is customary in Minimalism, assumed lexical items to be composed of features, with these often being viewed as a locus of parametric variation, it is worth considering their status in the context of the ‘three factors’ framework before returning to the specific question of how Afrikaans acquirers are able to acquire Afrikaans A. If UG is maximally underspecified, we might wonder whether it does indeed contain a prespecified inventory of formal features from which languages make ‘onetime selections’ (cf. Chomsky 1995, 2001). Minimalist considerations would seem to dictate that this will not be the case. Building on this idea, Gianollo, Guardiano, and Longobardi (2008) and Zeijlstra (2008) propose that establishing the class of formal features that are active in a given language is in fact part of the acquisition task faced by the acquirer. In particular, Zeijlstra (2008) suggests that we may think of the features comprising lexical items in the manner schematized in (48):

(48) Phonological features • [P]

Formal features •

Semantic features •

[uF] [iF]

• [S]

Following standard minimalist assumptions about the architecture of grammar, Zeijlstra assumes that there is an intersection between the set of formal (grammatical) features and the set of semantic features, whereas the set of phonological features does not intersect with the other two sets. Thus we expect to find languages in which animacy, for example, is grammaticalized (in the sense of determining aspects of the structure of the language in question) as opposed to others where it is not, but we do not expect to distinguish languages in which [nasality] is grammaticalized to convey a particular grammatical notion or where it expresses a particular semantic meaning from those where it does not. The acquirers’ task, then, is to establish which semantic features have been harnessed as part of the grammatical system of the language which (s)he is acquiring, and which have not. According to Zeijlstra, one of the considerations which determines this decision is whether or not

260

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

the acquirer encounters doubling/redundancy in the input. Thus, in the specific case of negation, the co-occurrence of an NM with other negative elements would, for example, signal that negation is grammaticalized in the language in question. Crucially, this entails that negation in DN languages like English and Dutch is not in fact a formal feature [i/uNEG], and therefore negation in these languages lacks the possibility of projecting negation-specific syntactic structure (e.g. NegP); instead, it is simply a semantic feature. The details of the analysis are not important here, and we refer the interested reader to Zeijlstra (2008) for more detailed discussion. Our key concern here is to establish the idea that the inventory of formal features in a given language could quite plausibly have to be acquired on the basis of the PLD and/or by appealing to ‘third factor’ considerations such as economy-driven acquisition strategies, rather than originating from a UG ‘menu’. In the specific case of the acquisition of Afrikaans A, we have already established that the PLD will contain many instances of structures where negative elements are doubled by NMs. The Afrikaans-acquiring child will, then, not have any difficulty in establishing that Afrikaans is a language in which negation is grammaticalized, i.e. that [u/iNEG] is part of the grammar (s)he is acquiring. What the child will not be able to establish on the basis of the PLD, however, is what the (un)interpretability status of the formal [NEG] features on negative elements in Afrikaans will be. In particular, as we saw in Section 13.3.2.1 above, there appears to be no plausible PLD which will enable the Afrikaans A acquiring child to establish that NIs in this variety are [iNEG]. The question, then, is whether there might be a ‘third factor’ consideration—specifically, a principle of acquisition or an acquisitional bias—that might enable the child to acquire this system. One possibility that suggests itself is that children might operate with the starting assumption that elements with negative form will in fact be genuinely negative (i.e. be semantically negative in a DN system, without Negative Doubling, and bear [iNEG] in an NC system featuring doubling22), unless there is evidence to the contrary.23 If children do indeed employ an acquisition principle of this type—and it is clear that it could be reduced to a very general ‘third factor’ principle relating to the interpretation of marked forms, which may, in fact, be non-distinct from the Elsewhere principle (cf. Kiparsky 1973); negativemarked items would be the ‘special case’ here—Afrikaans A is acquirable. Crucially, however, it is only acquirable because of the conjunction of the PLD and third-factor

22 As Ian Roberts (p.c.) points out, we might further expect acquirers to operate on the basis of a natural ‘economy’ strategy in relation to the question of whether ‘genuinely negative’ implies (non-formal) semantic or interpretable formal features—essentially, assume there are no Agree relations (involving formal [i/uF] unless there is clear evidence that this is necessary. This is clearly the spirit of Zeijlstra’s (2008) proposal. 23 In the context of an OT approach, one might think of this acquisitional bias as a type of faithfulness constraint (cf. De Swart 2010 for recent discussion of i.a. the faithfulness constraints that appear to play a role in the domain of negation).

Negative changes

261

considerations; UG generally and parametric considerations more specifically do not appear to play any role here. Before we conclude that the negation system of Afrikaans A is ultimately acquirable, albeit possibly not as straightforwardly as that of other systems, including Afrikaans B, a caveat is in order. If acquirers do employ a third-factor-imposed markedness-oriented acquisition strategy of the type outlined above, it is clear that the anti-Elsewhere proviso ‘unless there is evidence to the contrary’ would be of particular importance. As observed in Section 13.3.2.1, there is no evidence either way as far as NIs are concerned; therefore one might expect the default (Elsewhere) assumption to lead Afrikaans A acquirers to conclude that NIs are [iNEG]. What is not clear, however, is what the effect of these same acquirers having encountered ‘evidence to the contrary’ in relation to nie (analysed as [uNEG] owing to its ‘doubling’ distribution) might be: does this make them less willing to assume an [iNEG] analysis for NIs? Or does the featural specification of NMs play no role in children’s acquisition of the NI components of the negation system? It is possible to imagine answers that might go in either direction, and it would seem that the best route towards determining the answer would be an appropriately focused study of the acquisition of Afrikaans negation. This is, however, clearly a matter for future research. 13.4.5 Understanding the relation between Afrikaans A and Afrikaans B Before concluding, we return to the question we began with, namely how we might understand the relation between Afrikaans A, a system in which NMs are [uNEG] and NIs are [iNEG], and Afrikaans B, in which all negative elements are [uNEG]. What we have seen is that Afrikaans A is a system which is inherently very difficult to acquire: there is no PLD explicitly directing acquirers to the [iNEG] nature of NIs. That some children might postulate a [uNEG] specification instead of the prescribed [iNEG] seems, intuitively, rather natural, given the doubling evidenced in sentential negation contexts. In the context of Zeijlstra’s (2004, 2008) system, it is also formally natural since this analysis results in a uniform analysis of all negative elements in Afrikaans. That special intonation is required to signal DN readings may further steer Afrikaans-acquiring children towards the analysis that NIs are, in the neutral case, [uNEG] and licenced by an [iNEG] abstract operator; wherever NIs are focalized and therefore ‘sealed off ’ from the rest of the clause, this operator necessarily has to be merged within the focus domain, thus resulting in the characteristic intonational contour associated with focused NIs and focused elements more generally. If the markedness-oriented acquisition metric discussed in the previous section—negative-marked elements are assigned (semantic or interpretable) negative features unless there is evidence to the contrary—genuinely represents a third-factor acquisition strategy, it cannot be ruled out that Afrikaans-acquiring

262

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

children might conclude that there is in fact sufficient evidence to the contrary, with the result that they postulate Afrikaans B or, at least, a variety of Afrikaans in which NIs enter into NC relations. That this may in fact be correct is suggested by the fact that pre-standardization Afrikaans appears to have exhibited Negative Spread, as does that of older Afrikaans speakers who do not employ NI þ nie structures. Hence, it can be assumed that even in the early days of standard Afrikaans, children are likely to have been confronted with Negative Spread in their PLD. This, in turn, might lead us to question whether the negation system of Afrikaans A (i.e. standard Afrikaans) is in fact that of a natural language: is it an accident that we do not appear to have encountered Afrikaans A-type NC languages to date? Or is this the consequence of the fact that the negation system of Afrikaans A is an ‘engineered’ system, one in which prescriptively imposed doubling by a NM is ‘unnaturally’ combined with a standard Germanic Double Negation system? A potentially valuable testing ground for this radical proposal would be the acquisition of this system: if Afrikaans-acquiring children, like pre-standardization speakers, start off with a Negative Spread-permitting system, the evidence that a strict NC system is in fact the ‘natural’ one for Afrikaans would be strongly suggestive. And if this is the case, we may not actually be dealing with a change from Afrikaans A to Afrikaans B, as we have been assuming until now, but instead with a natural system (strict NC pre-standardization Afrikaans) which was partially ‘overwritten’—to eliminate more generally stigmatized Negative Spread (cf. Section 13.4.2)—during the process of standardization, and which requires further ‘overwriting’ each time it is acquired by new Afrikaans speakers. This interpretation of the facts is the one pursued in Biberauer and Zeijlstra (2011), to which the interested reader is referred for further discussion. Here, we summarize our conclusions about the likely considerations underlying the discrepancy between Afrikaans A and Afrikaans B. Although at least three hypotheses can be constructed as to how a change from Afrikaans A to B might have proceeded, none of these seems very plausible. Hypothesis I, in terms of which presumed overuse of non-clausal uses of nie led to a reanalysis of NIs as [uNEG] elements, falls short as non-standard Afrikaans varieties featuring Negative Spread, but not ‘extra’ nie exist; as such, extension of the domains in which final nie may occur to NIs cannot be a necessary condition for the NI-related change, although it is conceivable that a rise in the domains in which final nie may surface could reinforce an already-present third-factor-driven tendency in this direction. We also have no evidence of speakers currently or previously having had ‘extra’ nie grammars that did not also permit Negative Spread, which would be expected if the nie-related change preceded the NI-related one. Hypothesis II, that the n-word-related change happened first and created an appropriate environment for the nie-related change, is, in principle, very plausible: acquisitional considerations appear to undermine acquirers analyzing Afrikaans NIs as [iNEG] elements, rendering a change from

Negative changes

263

[iNEG]-bearing NIs to [uNEG]-bearing NIs (n-words) extremely natural. The same observations hold of the feasibility of Hypothesis III, in terms of which the two putative changes are unrelated, with the featural status of NIs playing no role in acquirers’ interpretation of the distribution of ‘extra’ nies in their system. Importantly, if the above is correct, the rise of Afrikaans B is not in fact very similar to what we see in the context of Jespersen’s Cycle, despite the fact that the featural change (loss of [iNEG]) could potentially be the same: the ever-increasing presence of a reinforcing element (here: final nie) does not appear to be the consideration which underlies the change from Afrikaans A to Afrikaans B. Even more importantly, if it is correct that the Afrikaans A system is not straightforwardly acquirable, we must ask whether it is in fact feasible to view this system as the starting point for a change resulting in Afrikaans B. As we have shown in this section, Afrikaans A may represent an artificial system in the context of which [iNEG] NIs are prescriptively imposed on a system that would naturally be a strict NC system, featuring [uNEG] NIs. If this is so, the case study considered in this chapter may be significant not for the insight it provides into how a typologically rare NC system (partial NC Afrikaans A) changes into a typologically common type (strict NC Afrikaans B), but, instead, into what the currently poorly understood linguistic notion of ‘unstable system’ might mean in real terms.

13.5 Conclusions This chapter has concerned itself with an aspect of the variation modern spoken varieties of Afrikaans exhibit in the domain of negation. It was shown that one variety (standard Afrikaans or Afrikaans A) appears to instantiate a new type of Negative Concord system, one in which negative markers are semantically nonnegative, but negative indefinites are semantically negative. This system—which one might call a partial NC system—appears to be typologically very rare and, at first sight, able to change into a more familiar type of NC system, namely a strict NC system, as exemplified by a modern colloquial variety, Afrikaans B. Assuming Afrikaans B to be an innovative variety derived from Afrikaans A, we can formulate the following diachronic questions: first, what causes change-inducing variation to arise in the first place, and, second, how does this variation lead to the rise of Afrikaans B. Ultimately, we conclude that Afrikaans A constitutes a formally peculiar system, one that does not seem to be straightforwardly acquirable on the basis of available PLD. Specifically, there does not appear to be unambiguous evidence revealing the featural specification of negative indefinites in the system: the relevant evidence would need to come from Double Negation structures, which are known, first, to be rare in actual usage and, second, to bear the same intonation contour in DN and NC languages. Furthermore, third-factor considerations such as the bias towards interpreting marked (here: negative) elements as bearing a marked

264

Theresa Biberauer and Hedde Zeijlstra

meaning (here: negative) in the absence of evidence to the contrary may also not direct the child towards the prescriptively correct analysis of Afrikaans A NIs as [iNEG]-elements. If this is correct, we would then expect Afrikaans-acquiring children to establish a Negative Spread-permitting system in the first instance, only ‘correcting’ this system—or, possibly more accurately, given the widespread nature of Negative Spread constructions in modern spoken Afrikaans (cf. Huddlestone 2010 for further discussion), supplementing it by an additional register-specific negation structure—upon exposure to appropriate normative input. Impressionistically, this appears to be correct, suggesting that it is not in fact the case that Afrikaans B—and other varieties in which negative indefinites exhibit Negative Concord—developed out of Afrikaans A. Should systematic study, which would also focus inter alia on the L1 acquisition of Afrikaans, reveal the predictions of the analysis proposed here to be correct, we would have a compelling case study of the meaningfulness of a generatively defined notion ‘possible language’ and, furthermore, of the way in which Factors II and III may interact, independently of Factor I, to determine the form of stable versus unstable language systems.

14 Romanian ‘can’ Change in parametric settings VIRGINIA HILL

14.1 Introduction This chapter re-visits the analysis of Romanian modal putea ‘can’ in order to clarify its path of grammaticalization and to integrate this process within a wider range of changes in the morpho-syntax of this language. Unlike previous studies on putea, this chapter starts from the assumption that variation in the modal interpretation (i.e. epistemic, alethic, deontic) arises from a gradual upward re-analysis of the modal verb in the clause hierarchy (Roberts and Roussou 2003).1 For the diachronic analysis, I take my data from a corpus of Moldavian chronicles (Letopiseţe—belonging to Ureche, Costin, and Necluce) and from philological work (Guruianu 2005, Frîncu 1969, Mareş 1994, a.o.) on other documents of Early Modern Romanian (EMR: sixteenth to eighteenth centuries)—which are the first written texts in Romanian. The use of putea in these texts is compared to Modern Romanian (MR). The empirical questions addressed are: Why is the infinitive complementation so productive with putea, when, in this language, infinitives are replaced with subjunctives as complements to verbs? How does the syntax allow for ambiguous interpretations (i.e. epistemic or deontic) for one and the same modal construction? Why is the frozen form poate ‘maybe’ classified as an adverb when there is no evidence of semantic enrichment? These questions involve theoretical issues that concern the mechanism of parametric (re)-setting and the interpretive load we assign to the syntax versus the lexicon: since putea selects infinitive complements whereas other verbs ceased to This chapter focuses on the diachronic changes of putea ‘can’, without attempting to sort out the relevance of this modal for the understanding of the semantics-syntax interface reflected in the use of modals and auxiliaries. For an interesting investigation of this aspect, see Hacquard (2009, 2010). Here, I work with the general assumptions on the syntactic mapping of modals (Cinque 1999), aiming only to the axis of grammaticalization for putea—work that has not been done before in formal syntax. 1

266

Virginia Hill

do so, should we consider that the parametric change is sensitive to modal semantics (Avram 1999) rather than applying blindly within given syntactic patterns? Furthermore, since the same sentence may yield two types of modal interpretations, should we consider that the same syntactic configuration accommodates two polysemous modals (Sarmento 2007)? In fact, should we increase the number of polysemous items to include the adverbial epistemic? Previous studies on putea suggest positive answers to these theoretical questions (Avram 1999; Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). I disagree with these answers and argue that the diachronic changes in this modal (i.e. from Latin to MR) yield different configurations for the [modal þ infinitive] construction versus the [modal þ subjunctive] construction (i.e. mono-clausal versus bi-clausal). Furthermore, the assessment of the grammaticalization stages for putea within Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy points out that the modal merges in two different functional heads within TP, which accounts for the deontic versus the epistemic readings, on a syntactic (versus lexical) basis; for independent reasons, both configurations may map to the same word order, yielding ambiguity out of the context. Cinque’s mapping also allows us to push the reanalysis of the modal in the speech act domain, where it qualifies as a functional head (i.e. Modepistemic); this analysis accurately explains the semantic and morphological attrition of the modal, which is elsewhere classified as an adverb. Finally, this analysis addresses the dichotomy between modal control configurations and deontic readings versus modal raising configurations and epistemic readings: our data show that raising configurations allow for both deontic and epistemic readings, a situation that is supported by the formal analysis.

14.2 The complements of putea The speaker of standard MR has healthy intuitions on the following modal constructions, although some of them are archaic:2 (1)

Nu putea [să not can-pst.3sg sbjv.mrk ‘She could not get in.’

intre.] enter-sbjv.3

(2)

Nu putea [intra.] not can-pst.3sg enter-inf ‘She could not get in.’

(3)

Nu putea [a intra.] not can-pst.3sg inf.mrk enter-sbjv.3 ‘She could not get in.’ (Radu Greceanu, eighteenth century; apud Frîncu 1969: 17)

2 Abbreviations: ind ¼ indicative; inf ¼ infinitive form; inv ¼ invariable; mrk ¼ marker; ptcp ¼ participle; pst ¼ past tense; sbjv ¼ subjunctive.

Romanian ‘can’ (4)

(*nu) Poate [că not can-inv that ‘She might get in.’

(5)

Nu poate el [nimic.] not can-3sg he nothing ‘He’s not capable of anything.’

267

intră.] enter-ind.3

The examples show that putea is a fully inflected verb that takes a range of complements: subjunctives (1), infinitives (2), (3), indicatives (4), and DPs (5). The difference between (2) and (3) consists in the presence of the infinitive mood marker a in the latter (full-fledged infinitive), but not in the former (bare infinitive); furthermore, (2) is productive whereas (3) is not. The subjunctive clause in (1) and the full-fledged infinitive clause in (3) are considered to have the same configuration (Alboiu 2002, Pirvulescu 2002), being both headed by mood markers (infinitive a has the same status as the subjunctive să). In (4) the modal is invariable and cannot support items associated with the TP field (e.g. negation). The constructions in (1), (2), and (4) are productive in modern language, whereas (3) and (5) are considered archaic and infrequently occur in pretentious style and/or in idiomatic expressions. The first problem arising from the data is the productivity of the infinitives in (2) (Rohlfs 1958). The expectation is that the subjunctive should have replaced these complements in the same way (1) replaced (3). Second, a construction as in (1) or (2) may have ambiguous deontic and epistemic readings outside the context, as shown in (6) and (7) respectively. (6)

Am putea would-1pl can-inf

[să sbjv.mrk

intrăm.] enter-1pl

(7)

Am putea [intra.] would-1pl can-inf enter-inf ‘We could get in.’ (ability, permission, alethic/epistemic)

There is no difference in the interpretation between (6) and (7), and both may yield the variety of readings in brackets. Apparently, there is no one-to-one pairing between interpretation and syntactic mapping. Finally, the invariable form poate in (4) counters the expectations arising from a lexicalization process: if this form is an adverb, why are its semantics so impoverished and its distribution restricted to wide scope? The chapter derives the answers to these questions from the formal inquiry into the grammaticalization of putea. It is argued that the structural configuration that supports the re-analysis of the modal from lexical to functional may naturally account for the variation in the complementation, the variation in interpretation,

268

Virginia Hill

the apparent exception to the infinitive replacement in (2), and the lexicalization in (4).

14.3 Framework for assessment The theoretical basis for assessment is adopted from Roberts and Roussou (2003), where grammaticalization involves the re-analysis of an element by merging it at a higher level in the hierarchy. The merge level for putea is assessed according to the location of adverbs and of functional projections that encode agreement, tense, aspect, and sentence typing. Thus, a hierarchy for the internal structure of the clause must be established, which I do within the cartographic hierarchy. The basic structure consists of Rizzi’s (1997) mapping in (8): (8)

[ForceP Force [FinP Fin [TP T [vP v/V ]]]]

Romanian instantiates Force as că, and Fin as de (Hill 2008). In the TP field, any Romanian verb (including putea) moves to T, irrespective of the type of inflection (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994 and other authors henceforth). The TP also includes the preverbal mood markers (labelled as MoodP in Alboiu 2002, Pirvulescu 2002 a.o.).3 In Cinque (1999), modality is mapped over a hierarchy that I incorporate in (8). Generally, modal interpretation is divided into epistemic or deontic/root, following Kratzer (1977). Cinque (1999) maps the deontic interpretation as a Mod-ability/ permission head with narrow scope. The epistemic modality is further divided according to whether the speaker’s point of view is involved or not: ‘objective’ epistemicity is mapped as Mod-alethic, under TP but higher than Mod-ability/ permission; ‘speaker-oriented’ epistemicity is mapped as Mod-epistemic, above the domain for information structure. Thus, the map in (8) takes the more complex organization in (9). (9)

[ModP Modepistemic [ForceP Force [FinP Fin [TP T [ModP Modalethic [ModP Modabil/permission [vP v/V ]]]]]]]

The last reference point I need in this hierarchy concerns the location for verb stems. The infectum stem of the infinitive is associated with active voice in traditional grammars; as such, I locate it in voice in Cinque’s hierarchy. Perfectum (or participial) morphology marks aspectual values on active verbs—in some languages (although not in Romanian) it may trigger object-verb agreement (labelled AgrOP in Kayne 1989b). In Cinque’s hierarchy, perfectum corresponds to an AspP, and all AspPs occur lower than the Mod field and higher than Voice. Thus, the complete configuration I adopt for the analysis has the representation in (10). 3

There is evidence from the periphrastic future that pre-verbal mood markers are merged and checked within TP versus FinP in Balkan languages (Hill and Mišeska-Tomić 2009).

Romanian ‘can’ (10)

269

[TopP Top [ModP Modepistemic [ForceP Force [FinP Fin [TP T [ModP Modalethic [ModP Modabil/permission [AspP Asp(perf) [VoiceP Voice(impf) [vP v/V ]]]]]]]

14.4 Lexical modal > functional modal The foregoing analysis considers the lexical modal as the basic form to which grammaticalization applied. The use of the lexical putea is well attested in EMR, as an intransitive (11a.) or transitive verb (11b.). This use is rare or idiomatic in MR. (11)

a. Unde nu va Dumnezău, nu poate omul. where not will God not can man.the ‘Where God shows no will, man cannot do a thing.’ (Ureche, seventeenth century; apud Panaitescu 1958: 81) b. că atîta au putut, iar mai mult nu poate . . . for this has could and more much not can ‘for this is all he could do—more he can’t’ (Neculce, eighteenth century; Iordan 1955: 138)

As a transitive, this verb may also allow for sentential complements with finite (12a.) or non-finite verbs (12b.) or free relatives (12c.). These are control structures, because of the ‘ability’ interpretation and are better attested in EMR than in MR. (12)

a. Cum ai putut [ de-ai făcut asta?] how have-2sg could of have-2sg done this ‘How could you do this?’ (Avram 1999: 178) b. Husari încă atîţea n- au putut [a face leşii ] Hussars though so.many not have could to make Poles.the ‘however, the Poles could not gather so many Hussars’ (Costin, eighteenth century; Panaitescu 1979: 50) c. au apucat [ce au putut de la margine] have taken what have could from the edge ‘they have taken what they could take from the edges’ (Ureche, seventeenth century; Panaitescu 1958: 207)

Therefore, lexical putea ‘to be capable’ has the thematic grid of a transitive verb, where the complement could be a DP/PP or a CP. However, there are signs that the semantic make-up is deficient: First, putea cannot be passivized, as it would be expected from a transitive verb (e.g. *Nimic n-a fost putut. ‘nothing not has been could’). Second, the class of nouns that qualify as complements to putea is very restricted: except for the demonstrative asta ‘this’, only quantifiers (including whwords) may occupy this position. This restriction in the s(emantic)-selection of nouns contrasts with the flexibility of the s-selection of sentential complements,

270

Virginia Hill

where the only restriction concerns the availability of an anaphoric subject in the embedded clause. It is, then, predictable that learners classified putea as, primarily, a control verb, reducing one th-role by half. This analysis assigns a CP structure to the embedded clause, as in (13), as signalled by the lexical complementizers (e.g. de in 12a., ce ‘what’ in 12c.). (13)

[CP/TP T putea [vP v/V putea [CP C de/ce [TP T [vP v/V]]]]]

If frequency influences the parametric settings in learners (Bresnan 2007), then the configuration in (13) cannot fare well, because de has been dropped from indicative complements to substantive verbs very early, and free relatives occur only idiomatically with putea. Thus, learners could not have had much evidence for the configuration in (13) on the basis of (12a., c.). On the other hand, EMR texts abound in constructions as in (12b.), with the full-fledged infinitive. This clause may qualify as a regular CP, with a non-lexical C. These configurations, further illustrated in (14), allow for a flexibility in the modal interpretation that the configurations with lexical CP do not. (14)

Putea [a intra.] could-3sg inf.mrk enter-inf ‘She could get in.’ (ability, permission, alethic) (Greceanu, seventeenth century; Frîncu 1969: 17)

The ‘ability’ reading in (14) may still be attributed to the lexical definition of putea; however, ‘permission’ and ‘alethic’ do not have the same source, unless polysemy applies. So, we must either assume polysemy or a different syntactic processing of the same lexical item. I argue for the latter, on two grounds: (i) polysemous modals should not share the ‘ability’ reading; (ii) the full-fledged transitive and the control putea, which are both restricted to the ‘ability’ reading, display a different syntactic behaviour than putea in (14). More precisely, putea in (14) shows the properties of a non-thematic, raising verb, on a par with ‘seem’, which implies the loss of the CP layer and of the s-selection features. The tests proposed below, some of which are borrowed from Davies and Dubinsky (2004), sort out the control versus the raising verb status of putea. In these examples, the archaic full-fledged infinitive complement has a replica in the subjunctive complements, with which they could freely alternate around the seventeenth century. .

(15)

Control versus raising verbs allow for pseudo-clefting: a. Ceea ce poate El e [toate a face şi a schimba.] that what can He is all inf.mrk do-inf and inf.mrk change-inf

Romanian ‘can’

271

b. Ceea ce poate El e [să facă şi that what can He is sbjv.mrk make-sbjv and să schimbe totul.] sbjv.mrk change-sbjv all ‘What He (God) can do is make and change everything.’ The reading in (15) is exclusively ‘ability’, which is expected under the analysis of putea as a control verb. .

(16)

Raising versus control configurations allow for impersonal se: a. Se poate [-a cuteza.]// Se poate [să cutezăm.] se can inf.mrk dare-inf se can sbjv.mrk dare-1pl ‘It’s possible to dare.’//‘It is allowed to dare.’ b. Se pare [că va cuteza.] se seems that will dare ‘It seems that s/he will dare.’

(raising verb)

c. *Se începe [a cuteza.]// [să cutezăm.] (aspectual/control verb) se starts inf.mrk dare-inf sbjv.mrk dare-1pl Intended: ‘People start to dare.’ d. Începem [a cuteza.]//[să start-1pl inf.mrk dare-inf ‘We start to dare.’ .

cutezăm.]

Non-thematic (raising) putea takes passive complements with inanimate subjects:

(17) a. Maria poate a schimba// să schimbe perdele. (raising) Maria can inf.mrk change-inf sbjv.mrk change curtains.the ‘Maria might/is allowed to/is able to change the curtains.’ b. Perdelele pot a fi// să fie schimbate de Maria. curtains.the can-3pl inf.mrk be// sbjv.mrk be-sbjv.3 changed by Mary ‘The curtains might be changed by Mary.’// ‘It is allowed to have the curtains changed by Mary.’// *‘The curtains are able to be changed . . . ’ c. Maria a început a schimba// să schimbe perdelele. Maria has started inf.mrk change-inf// sbjv.mrk change-sbjv.3 curtains ‘Mary started to change the curtains.’ d. *Perdelele au început a fi// să fie schimbate de Maria. curtains.the have started inf.mrk be// sbjv.mrk be-sbjv changed by Mary In this analysis, the multiple readings putea allows as a raising verb come from the association of the modal with various functional projections in syntax, rather than

272

Virginia Hill

from a lexical list (as in the control configuration). This happens when learners strip the control putea of thematic roles and of substantive features, while also dropping the CP layer in (13). That is, putea is re-analysed as a raising verb, with grammatical versus semantic transitivity (as in Roberge 2002 a.o.). In these contexts, putea is semantically reduced to underspecified [possibility] modality. The values for [possibility] are assigned in the syntactic hierarchy: an ‘ability’/‘permission’ when the modal checks the feature of low Mod head; an ‘alethic’ reading when the modal checks the high Mod head under TP. The configuration is given in (18). (18)

[TP proi Tputea [ModP Modputea [vP Vputea [TP proi T . . . ]]]]

In (18), putea still merges in the lexical vP domain, but has no th-roles and no sselection features, being computed on the basis of c-selection only. Due to probing from T, putea moves through the clause hierarchy to the highest level. On the way, it checks the features of a Mod head—the type of Mod (high or low) is decided in the numeration. The bi-clausal configuration in (18) is very productive in modern Romanian, but with the subjunctive (versus full-fledged infinitive) complementation. No structural or hierarchical difference is expected between these two types of clauses—both have pre-verbal mood markers with clitic properties and attract verb movement to the highest functional projection in the inflectional field (Alboiu 2002; Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). The switch between full-fledged infinitives and subjunctive clauses took place around the sixteenth century (Frîncu 1969), and involved the change in the value of one feature: [  finite] of the infinitive became [ þ finite] in subjunctives. Therefore, I conclude that the replacement process detected only configurations with (CP)/TP infinitives in the relevant contexts (i.e. complements to V), and had no consequences for the grammaticalization of putea, which continued to be analyzed as either control (13) or raising (18).

14.5 Modal auxiliary EMR texts display co-occurrence of putea with full-fledged infinitive (4), subjunctive (1), or bare infinitive complements (2). However, the alternation of full-fledged infinitives and subjunctive complements can be quantified (the former predominating in sixteenth century texts but becoming almost extinct by the end of the seventeenth century; Frîncu 1969), whereas the bare infinitive complementation is a constantly productive alternative for both complements, preceding the replacement of infinitives with subjunctives, as in (19). (19)

abia putumú ţinrea corabiia barely could-1pl handle-inf boat.the ‘We could barely handle the boat.’ (document, 1563; Mareş et al. 1994: 82)

Romanian ‘can’

273

The general assumption is that the bare infinitive in (2) or (19) belongs to a biclausal structure where the embedded inflectional field is skipped (20a.) (Avram 1999; Dobrovie-Sorin 1994) or very reduced (20b.) (Motapanyane and Avram 2000). (20)

a. [TP Tar putea [vP Vputea [vP Vvedea-inf ]]] b. [TP Tar putea [vP Vputea [YP Yvedea [vP Vvedea-inf ]]]] (Motapanyane and Avram 2000: 154)

(Avram 1999: 192)

In (20a.), the control/raising verb selects a vP complement; in (20b.) there is an embedded functional domain YP, but it is very restricted. Both configurations are assessed as bi-clausal; that is, there are two separate predicates, each verb projecting its own argument structure. In other words, putea in (20) is no different from the lexical putea in (5)/(12). Such an approach has diagnostic problems. First, the preposing and the ellipsis of the infinitive should be allowed in (20), which is contradicted by the data: (21)

a. *Vedea [ne-ar putea.] see-inf us would can-inf Intended: ‘To see us, she could.’ b. *Pe tine nu te pot vedea, dar pe ea o pot. on you not you can-1sg see-inf but on her her can-1sg Intended: ‘You, I can’t see, but her, I can.’

(preposing)

(ellipsis)

One may think that putea is a clitic constrained by phonology to attach to the infinitive. This is not the case, since putea serves as a phonological support for other clitics (e.g. the conditional auxiliary ar ‘have’ in (21a.)) and may be separated from the verb by phrasal constituents, as we shall see in (22b.). Since putea is a free morpheme, the ungrammaticality in (21) indicates that [putea þ infinitive] behaves as a tight constituent that shares the same functional domain. Such an analysis excludes the configuration in (20): in that structure, the modal and the infinitive cannot be in the same domain since they are separated by two vP borders. Another empirical problem for (20) comes from the word order: post-verbal subjects in situ and certain adverbs follow the infinitive verb, indicating that the infinitive moved out of vP: (22)

a. (Cineva) lea putut ajuta (cineva) pe toate. somebody them has could-pst.ptcp help-inf somebody on all ‘Somebody could help them all.’ b. Au putut deja verifica toţi foarte bine dosarele. have-3pl could-pst.ptcp already check-inf all very well files.the ‘They all could already check very well the files.’

274

Virginia Hill

Bare quantifiers in subject position surface in situ in Spec,vP (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994 a.o.); hence, ‘somebody’ following the infinitive in (22a.) shows that the infinitive moved above Spec,v. The adverb hierarchy in Cinque (1999) also indicates the degree of verb movement: in (22b.) ‘well’ indicates the vP edge; this is preceded by the floating quantifier ‘all’, which is stranded in Spec,vP; hence, the higher infinitive form is out of vP (in Voice). Another adverb in (22b.) is ‘already’, which merges high in the TP field (e.g. the order ‘well’—‘already’ is ungrammatical). The modal merges higher than ‘already’. Hence, (22) shows that both the infinitive verb and the modal are in the TP field, but the modal is merged higher than the infinitive verb; so T sees only the modal for probing. Again, the word order in (22) cannot arise from a structure as in (20), where the infinitive verb should have followed, not preceded, the adverbs and the subject in Spec,vP. The representation in (20b.) accommodates the word order by moving the infinitive verb to Y. However, it is difficult to identify the nature of YP, except that this cannot be TP; also it is not clear why only YP versus other functional projections is generated. These tests indicate that putea is re-analyzed as a functional (versus lexical) modal; this modal merges in the functional field either in the Mod for [ability/ permission], giving it narrow scope, or in the Mod for [alethic poss], giving it wide scope. In both instances, putea ends up in T, since T always probes a non-clitic verbal head, and putea is the closest candidate. The configuration appears in (23). (23)

[TP Tputea [ModP Modputea [VoiceP Voiceajuta [vP Vajuta . . . ]]]]

In (23), putea merges as a Mod head and receives the respective interpretation; that is, if the Mod head is low in the hierarchy, the reading is ‘ability’ or ‘permission’; if Mod is high, the reading is ‘alethic possibility’. The infinitive verb merges as V root and moves to a projection that checks its voice [infectum] feature. In this configuration, [tense] is valued by T probing putea. Thus, when the modal is merged in low Mod it checks more functional features (longer head-to-head movement) than when it is merged in high Mod, the latter being very close to T. One of the intermediary heads checked by the low merged putea is the perfectum feature, which is active in complex tenses, such as present perfect (e.g. am putut ‘have-1 could’). In the Government-Binding framework, this perfectum projection would correspond to AgrOP in Kayne (1989b). Thus, when putea is merged in high Mod, the perfectum is unobtainable. This situation reflects the general observation that present perfect constructions are always deontic in interpretation (Wurmbrand 2001). The example in (24a.) shows this to be the situation in Romanian as well, in out of the context declaratives. However, there are ways of circumventing the rule, as shown in (24b.). (24)

a. S- a putut termina treaba la timp. se has could-pst.ptcp finish-inf work-the in time ‘The work could be finished in time.’

Romanian ‘can’

275

b. So fi putut termina fără să ne dăm seama. refl has be could-pst.ptcp finish-inf without sbjv.mrk refl give mind ‘It might have got finished without us noticing.’ An exclusive deontic interpretation applies to (24a.), whereas (24b.) has an alethic reading, despite the presence of a past participle form. However, the latter also displays a different mood (i.e. presumptive, versus indicative in 24a.), which is a main factor for determining the epistemic value (Irimia 2008). Hence, epistemicity with past participle forms of putea may occur when it is recovered through other means than the modal’s merge position. To sum up, this section argued that in constructions with [putea þ bare infinitives] the modal has been re-analyzed as a Mod head in the TP field, whereas the infinitive verb merges as V, with further movement to Voice. The modal is semantically underspecified for ‘possibility’ and obtains its reading (i.e. ability, permission, alethic) according to its merge site (either in low Mod or in high Mod), as the effect of syntactic checking. In this configuration, putea is not only stripped of s-selection features, but it is also re-analyzed outside the argument structure domain, as an inflectional element; as such, its c-selection becomes stripped of all typing features (e.g. sentence/Force typing or [tense]/Fin typing) and is limited to non-typing selection (e.g. VoiceP or AspP). The result is a mono-clausal (versus the bi-clausal structure of control/raising putea). Historically, the grammaticalization of putea as a high functional modal occurred very early, at the branching from vulgar Latin. This process must be related to the switch in infinitive morphology, from mood marking with the Latin suffix -re to mood marking with pre-verbal a. Before this switch has been established, the learner had insufficient evidence for a mood projection in infinitives; in the case of putea, this has been compounded with the semantic weakness in the modal. Thus, vulgar Latin [*potere þ infinitive] gave rise to two derivational patterns in early Romanian: one with control/raising putea, and one with the modal auxiliary putea; the former displayed a bi-clausal structure with a full-fledged infinitive complement, the latter displayed a mono-clausal structure, where the modal is re-analyzed as a quasiauxiliary in the TP of the lexical verb that surfaces with a bare infinitive form. These two constructions were very productive for centuries, and are attested as such in EMR. When the subjunctive paradigm emerged as a replacement to infinitives, the process applied only to bi-clausal structures, that is, to CP/TP (full-fledged) infinitive complements. Mono-clausal structures with bare infinitives were not visible to this process (not having a CP or a TP complement). Thus, constructions with [putea þ bare infinitives] are not an exception to the replacement with subjunctive forms, they simply did not qualify for such operations.

276

Virginia Hill

14.6 Pragmatic marker The last type of construction discussed is presented in (4) and repeated below: (4)

(*nu) Poate [că intră.] not can-inv. that enter-ind.3 ‘She might get in.’

This exact word order is more recent, being absent from the EMR. However, slightly different versions existed in these centuries, as discussed later. The form poate in (4) is invariable, and cannot support elements generally associated with an inflectional field (e.g. negation, adverbs, clitic pronouns, auxiliaries). This is recognized in traditional and formal analyses, and led to the classification of this item as an adverb (Grammatica Academiei 1963; Avram 1999), which would be somehow derived from the frozen indicative third person singular form of the modal verb. This analysis implies that grammaticalization took place—which led to the frozen verb form—followed by a re-lexicalization of the item, as a different substantive category (i.e. adverb instead of verb). There are serious objections to the adverb analysis of poate, and to the lexicalization analysis. First, deriving adverbs from frozen verb forms is not the rule observed in Romanian, where adverbs are derived from adjectives (e.g. firesc, adj. ‘natural’ > fireşte, adv. ‘naturally’; versus puternic, adj. ‘strong’ > *puterniceşte ‘strongly’, based on the putea root). Second, poate does not display the semantic complexity of a substantive category; in fact, it has only one feature: [epistemic possibility]. Lack of a substantive set of semantic features is reflected in its syntax: (i) poate takes only propositional scope, while sentential (propositional) adverbs may also occur with predicational scope (e.g. Sigur, vorbeşte bine. ‘Certainly, he speaks well’; or Vorbeşte mai sigur acum. ‘He speaks in a more assured way now.’). (ii) Sentential adverbs project a phrasal structure (i.e. AdvP), where modifiers can merge (e.g. Mai sigur, vine pe la ora 8. ‘More certainly, he come around 8 o’clock.’); poate cannot have modifiers (e.g. *mai/foarte poate ‘more/very poate’). (iii) Sentential adverbs alternate with adverbial PPs (e.g. În mod sigur vine pe la ora 8. ‘Certainly (in way certain), he comes around 8 o’clock.’); poate does not alternate with PPs (e.g. *în mod poate ‘in way poate’). These observations, together with the evidence on the semantic and functional attrition of the invariable poate, led us to analyse this item as a pragmatic marker, rather than a substantive (adverbial) category. More precisely, I argue that poate springs from a high re-analysis of the modal putea, in Cinque’s Mod-epistemic, above ForceP. This analysis naturally accounts for the syntactic restrictions on invariable poate (i.e. lack of inflection and inflectional items, lack of phrasal properties, word order).

Romanian ‘can’

277

The evidence I found indicates that the high re-analysis of poate took place in two configurations: (i) in the bi-clausal construction (i.e. with full-fledged infinitive or subjunctive complements), poate has been re-analysed with ‘that’-indicative complements (ForceP), as in (4); (ii) in the mono-clausal construction (i.e. with bare infinitive complements), poate has been re-analysed without a ForceP complement. Let us consider the occurrence of frozen poate in EMR: (25)

a. acest om, poate-fi, este trebuitoriu this man may-be is necessary ‘this man is perhaps indispensable’ (Neculce, eighteenth century; Iordan 1955: 116) b. dar or fi, poate, tăinute but would be perhaps hidden ‘but they may be, perhaps, hidden’ (Neculce, eighteenth century; Iordan 1955: 103)

In this text, poate-fi ‘may-be’ alternates with poate. I consider that the latter involves the dropping of fi, and only this further reduced form has been transmitted to modern Romanian. In light of the grammaticalization process proposed in this chapter, poate-fi represents a frozen form of the mono-clausal configuration, where the modal shares the inflectional field with the bare infinitive ‘be’. This re-analysis involves a hierarchical level above TP, since the reading is propositional, and TP is filled with a different verb. After searching six texts, I found only two instances where poate-fi precedes a ‘that’-indicative: (25)

c. poate fi că n- a ştiut may be that not has known ‘perhaps he did not know’ (Ureche, seventeenth century; Panaitescu 1958: 65)

This word order confirms the high level of re-analysis for the compound poate-fi (i.e. high in the CP), although the ForceP versus TP analysis of the clause was rare. Importantly, the form poate-fi has no resemblance to the adverbial class in Romanian, and the reduced form poate fails to qualify for a lexicalization analysis (displaying further attrition instead of complexity). After the generalization of the subjunctive as the complement to the non-thematic putea (i.e. after the seventeenth century), impersonal forms of this modal with ‘that’indicative complements become productive,4 on a par with ‘seem’, when the verbs are non-raising:

4

I did not find any construction with se poate că ‘refl can-invar that’ in letopiseţe.

278

(26)

Virginia Hill a. Se poate că are dreptate. se can that has right ‘It is possible that s/he’s right.’ b. Se pare că are dreptate. se seems that has right ‘It seems that s/he’s right.’

In (26), the se-generic forms are restricted in their inflection: they may take a conditional form (which involves the auxiliary ‘have’), indicating that poate belongs to the TP (i.e. it is in T). However, poate cannot be inflected for person, tense, mood, and cannot support negations, short adverbs, clitic pronouns. I consider that this lack of evidence for inflectional features led to the re-analysis of these generic verb forms in the speech act domain, above ‘that’. Constructions as in (4) reflect this reanalysis. Basically, the evidence I have discussed so far argues for a further grammaticalization of putea, versus its lexicalization, when it occurs with invariable forms. In such an approach, the exclusive epistemic interpretation of invariable putea comes from its re-analysis in Cinque’s Mod-epistemic, which dominates ForceP: (27)

[ModPepistemic Modpoate [ForceP Force că [TP T . . . ]]]

The representation in (27) provides a uniform account for invariable poate with or without ‘that’-indicative complements, since ForceP may or may not be projected. Furthermore, (27) can be generalized to other frozen forms that have been reduced to one pragmatic feature (e.g. [evidentiality] or [epistemicity]). There is a large class of such elements in Romanian (e.g. las’că ‘assuredly’; trebuie că ‘must be’; parcă ‘seemingly’ etc.), each element receiving, at this time, a different categorial classification (e.g. las ¼ injunctive interjection; trebuie ¼ verb; parcă ¼ adverb). In (27), each of these elements qualifies as a pragmatic marker, merged directly in a functional head above ForceP. Within the class of pragmatic markers, poate has a special status, being the only member that can surface with or without ‘that’. This follows from its dual context for grammaticalization: in mono-clausal constructions (independently of ‘that’ but dependently of ‘be’), or in bi-clausal constructions, in relation to the obligatory indicative ‘that’. All the other members of the same class of pragmatic markers have been re-analyzed in bi-clausal structures; hence, ‘that’ is obligatory with these elements.

14.7 Conclusions This chapter proposed a grammaticalization analysis for Romanian putea ‘can’, which argues for the co-occurrence of two parallel configurations: one bi-clausal

Romanian ‘can’

279

and one mono-clausal. Both configurations are attested in EMR (the earliest written texts in Romanian), but the type of sentential complements has changed. Briefly, in both configurations, the lexical verb putea ‘to be capable’ turns into a functional verb, which is further re-analysed as a pragmatic marker. The difference occurs in the hierarchical level at which the functional verb is merged; that is, either within the argument structure (i.e. raising verb/bi-clausal structure) or in the TP (i.e. modal auxiliary/mono-clausal structure). Each configuration provides generic contexts, where lack of evidence for inflectional features triggers the re-analysis of the functional putea in the speech act domain (i.e. above CP/TP). This analysis provides answers to some empirical questions: (i) Why is the infinitive complementation still productive with this modal? These are mono-clausal derivations that were not visible to the process of replacement by subjunctive forms, the latter applying only to complements in bi-clausal structures. (ii) Why is deontic/epistemic ambiguity possible in the same construction? Each reading relies on a different syntactic configuration, but they both may map to the same word order. Ambiguity, however, occurs only out of the context and in the absence of adverbial modifications. (iii) Why is putea compatible with either control or raising constructions? The tests showed that raising putea arises from the semantic attrition of the control putea. Control putea has lexical properties and allows only for an ‘ability’ reading, whereas raising putea has an underspecified [possibility] feature that obtains its values from the functional projection (ModP) putea checks (i.e. ability/permission; alethic; epistemic). This analysis counters the general assumption that control structures pair with deontic readings whereas raising structures pair with epistemic readings. (iv) Why is poate classified as an adverb? Such classification involves lexicalization, whereas poate is an invariable form displaying acute attrition. I argued for a pragmatic marker status of this element, involving its grammaticalization in the speech act domain, high in the CP field. This analysis provides a uniform account for other similar forms. Theoretically, this analysis is challenging insofar as it argues for the existence of multiple parametric settings. Basically, the learner may reset the parameters in two ways concurrently (e.g. as raising verb or as modal auxiliary), within the same language register. The data clearly show that the parallel parametric setting leading to the constructions in (1) and (2) survived for centuries (since the branching from vulgar Latin), and they continue to occur in free alternation, attesting true intra-language variation. Examples as in (28) provide the evidence, since the con-

280

Virginia Hill

structions alternate within the same sentence, in the eighteenth century, as in the twenty-first century. (28)

a. Pământul acesta [n- ar putea [avea]] niciodată lipsă de pâine, land.the this not would can have-inf never lack of bread ce încă [s-ar putea [să iasă]] o sumă mare de pâine. but still se would can sbjv emerge-sbjv a sum big of bread (Documente bîrledene, 1781; Frîncu 1969: 17) ‘This land could never fail to produce bread, on the contrary, it could still provide a lot of bread.’ b. [Nu poate nimeni [contesta]] că [ fiecare om not can nobody contest-inf that each person poate [să- şi hotărască soarta.]] can sbjv refl decide-sbjv fate-the ‘Nobody can contest it that each person can decide for his own fate.’

The multiple grammar (Bickerton 1971 a.o.) and the feature-driven approaches (Adger and Smith 2005) to language change and variation have still to contend with these facts.

15 Prepositional genitives in Romance and the issue of parallel development From Latin to Old French CHIARA GIANOLLO

15.1 Introduction The fact that the Romance languages, since their earliest attestations, appear to be, from the point of view of their syntactic type, much closer to one another than to their documented common Latin ancestor is often cited as a most striking case of parallel development. As such, it poses a serious challenge to non-directional theories of syntactic change (cf. the recent discussion in Roberts 2007: 351–76, and Longobardi, this volume). In accounting for syntactic change, a diachronic theory must be able to distinguish between three different factors: (1)

a. interference b. chance parallelism / convergent evolution c. (chain-effects of) an inherited change

Phylogenetic models refer to (1a.) as borrowing, to (1b.) as homoplasy, and to (1c.) as homology. (1c.) is best recognized when there is a direct transmission of a character (parametric value) from one language to the other. However, for the syntactic domain, it has often been proposed that (1c.) can also arise more indirectly, as the result of a chain of shifts, and that consequently it is often difficult to empirically distinguish between (1b.) and (1c.). That is, apparent cases of chance parallelism may in fact be due to a sequence of changes brought about by an actually inherited grammatical property. The best known formulation of the problem is represented by Sapir’s (1921: 172) notion of drift: ‘The momentum of the more fundamental, the pre-dialectic, drift is often such that languages long disconnected will pass through the same or strikingly similar phases’. Since Lightfoot (1979), theories of linguistic change couched in the biolinguistic framework have discarded

282

Chiara Gianollo

directional explanations for syntactic change, on the basis of the fundamental assumption that the mechanism of direct transmission through language acquisition is incompatible with ‘racial memories’ of any sort. However, it has more recently been proposed that a better understanding of the functioning of parametric systems can help derive long-term effects on a principled basis (Roberts 2007: 340–57, Longobardi, this volume, Roberts, this volume). In this chapter, I will tackle the issue of parallel development and the problem of distinguishing between (1b.) and (1c.) by focusing on the observed sequence of morpho-syntactic changes affecting the realization of arguments of nominal heads (genitives) from Latin to Romance. I will present data from a corpus search over Late Latin (third–fourth century ad) and Old French texts (eleventh– thirteenth century ad), with the addition of some Middle French data (until 1600). The expression of adnominal arguments undergoes a deep restructuring from Latin to the modern Romance languages: genitives, which are inflectionally encoded in Latin and occur in a variety of configurations with respect to the head noun, come to be realized, in the Western Romance varieties, uniquely by means of post-nominal prepositional phrases headed by continuations of the originally ablative preposition de. Such restructuring is commonly considered to be a consequence of the general process of deflexion observed in the transition from Latin to Romance. However, neither the substantial similarity of outcomes in the Western Romance languages, nor the existence of intermediate stages with coexisting inflectional and prepositional realizations, are exhaustively addressed by uniquely attributing this change to morphological impoverishment. I will argue that a careful exam of nominal syntax in late varieties of Latin can uncover the ultimate syntactic cause of the observed similarity in the Western Romance outcomes. I will also propose a syntactic analysis of Old French inflectional genitives (realized with the cas-régime absolu), which is able to capture the diachronic link to the Latin genitive constructions and to elucidate the succession of steps leading to the generalization of the prepositional realization in the modern descendant. My explanation of the parallel development of prepositional genitives in Romance will interpret it as a chain-effect of an original inherited change (1c.), thus supporting the idea that a parametric model of syntactic variation combined with some theoretical assumptions about the dynamics of change can lead us to choose in a principled way among the competing hypotheses in (1a.–c.). In the following section, I will propose a parametric model for the syntax of genitives, together with some of its diachronic implications. In section 15.3, I will discuss the Late Latin situation, and in section 15.4 I will present the Old French data. Section 15.5 summarizes my conclusions.

Prepositional genitives in Romance

283

15.2 A parametric model for the syntax of adnominal genitive The theoretical framework on which I base my syntactic analysis of genitive constructions centres on the idea that genitive (i.e. the formal realization of adnominal arguments) is a heterogeneous category from a syntactic point of view: genitive case-marked constituents behave as structurally case-marked in some configurations, and as lexically case-marked in others. Parametric variation exists with respect to the kind of configuration allowed in a language, and more than one mechanism can be present. While many languages have different morphological encodings for different configurations (e.g. English), in some languages (e.g. Classical Latin) the same morphological realization can be given to structures that originate from different sources. In my analysis I adopt a parametric model, according to which the remarkable cross-linguistic variation found in this domain can be reduced to three fundamental strategies of adnominal argument realization: (2)

a. GovG: a non-iterating in situ genitive, realized via a government configuration in the position of merge and requiring adjacency to its head noun (cf. Shlonsky 2004); b. AgrG: an Agree configuration, whereby genitives can be realized, according to the restrictions imposed by the thematic hierarchy, in two different functional projections, whose activation is subject to parametric choice (cf. Longobardi 2001b); c. ModG: a predicational structure, which can be analyzed as a reduced relative clause, by means of which modifier-like genitives can be iterated without showing ordering constraints (cf. analyses like Kayne 1994 and following, or Cinque 1994 for a parallel configuration involving adjectives).

The model in (2) is very similar to the one adopted in the parametrization of DPinternal syntax by Gianollo, Guardiano, and Longobardi (2008), with the addition of the government configuration in (2a.). Some of the cross-linguistic data on which it is based are presented and discussed in Longobardi (2001b) and Gianollo (2005). The typology in (2) is particularly well illustrated by Classical Greek, a language that displays all the options above, and that, despite giving them the same morphological realization, requires different distributional contexts for each (cf. Manolessou 2000, Guardiano 2003). (3)

a. Æıc  dÆØ tBr aute he dunamis tes itself the strength the:gen ‘the strength itself of the city’ (Thuc., II.41.2)

p¸keyr poleōs city:gen

(GovG; NG order)

284

Chiara Gianollo b.  Æ¥æ Ø he hairesis the conquest ‘the conquest of (Thuc., II.58.2)

(4)

a. ÆE tHm tais tōn the the:gen ‘the practice of (Thuc., II.39.1)

tBr p¸keyr tes poleōs the:gen city:gen the city’

(GovG; NG order)

pokelijHm polemikōn military.exercises:gen military exercises’

 lÆØ meletais practice(pl)

(AgrG; GN order)

b. c toF K›wgtor tHm meHm Iæåc (AgrG; GGN order) ten tou Lachetos tōn neōn archen the the:gen Laches:gen the:gen ships:gen command ‘Laches’ command of the fleet’ (Thuc., III.115.6) (5)

a. K fiB en tei in the:dat ‘in the land of (Thuc. II.57.1)

gfi B t§ B gei tei land:dat the:dat the Athenians’

b. K fiB g§ B tfi B en tei gei tei in the:dat land:dat the:dat ‘in the Attic land’ (Thuc. II.57.1)

Zhgmaßym Athenaiōn Athenians:gen

(ModG; NG order)

Økfi B Attikei Attic:dat

(ModA; NA order)

The examples in (3)–(5) show that: (i) a post-N genitive adjacent to the noun can express the subjective (3a.) and the objective (3b.) function (but see Shlonsky 2004 on cross-linguistic and construction-specific restrictions); (ii) genitives can also be preN (4a.); two genitives can co-occur in pre-N position, respecting the thematic hierarchy Agent > Theme (4b.); (iii) in definite DPs, it is possible to see that there is a further post-N configuration in Classical Greek, in which the genitive is preceded by the doubling of the matrix DP’s definite article (5a.). The same phenomenon appears with post-N adjectives (5b.); determiner doubling is in fact the only possibility to license post-N adjectives (cf. the discussion of determiner spreading in Modern Greek in Alexiadou and Wilder 1998). As seen in (3)–(5), the same morphological form can appear in different syntactic configurations. This seems to be the case also for prepositional genitives crosslinguistically. There is an ongoing debate with respect to their nature, motivated especially by the fact that they are somehow ‘freer’ than their inflectional counter-

Prepositional genitives in Romance

285

parts (can be iterated, can occur in orders which do not respect the thematic hierarchy, can be non-adjacent to the head noun), but at the same time are sensitive to structural constraints, such as possessivization, extraction, and binding (cf. Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Longobardi 2001b, Androutsopoulou and Español-Echevarría 2003 for a summary of the debate). It is plausible that this heterogeneity may arise from a combination of licensing strategies. In 15.4.4 I will propose an analysis of the Old French prepositional genitive, hinting however to some evidence suggesting that the modern construction displays some crucially different properties. In the Indo-European languages included in Gianollo, Guardiano, and Longobardi’s (2008) sample, the configuration in ModG is always realized post-nominally (with all probability harmonically with the post-N realization of relative clauses). Thus, in these languages a GN order can only be analyzed as an AgrG configuration, in one of the two dedicated projections. The fact that there are two distinct positions is indicated not only by the possibility of multiple occurrences (cf. 4b.), but also by the positioning with respect to adjectives. The two projections for structural genitive licensing, tagged GenS and GenO, and their position with respect to adjectives, are shown in (6), from Longobardi (2001b: 597): (6)

[D [GenS [Num [H1 [S-or [M1 H2 [M2 H3 [Arg H4 [GenO [ÆP [S [O . . . N]]]]]]]]]]]]

In (6), the lexical layer containing the noun and its arguments is indicated with Æ. S-or (Speaker- or Subject-oriented), M1 (Manner-1), M2 (Manner-2), Arg (Argumental) projections refer to hierarchically ordered positions for adjectives. The positions tagged H1, H2, etc., represent the cross-linguistically attested targets of intermediate N(P)-movement (cf. Bernstein 1993). The possibility for the noun head or the NP to raise across functional projections brings us to the next point, i.e. the structural ambiguity of the NG order. A linear string NG in a language can result in principle from three different configurations: (i) a GovG; (ii) one of the two positions where AgrG is licensed, in languages where N(P)-raising to higher projections is present; (iii) a ModG. As we have already mentioned, distinguishing between the three is not, to a large extent, a matter of morphology. While a prepositional realization is restricted to types (2a.) and (c.), an inflectional form is compatible with all types of licensing. The interplay with other DP-internal parameters is, instead, revealing. In particular, adjectives represent a crucial diagnostics for the syntax of genitives. Since the functional projections hosting adjectives are situated in between the two AgrG positions, the relative order of noun, adjective and genitive is a crucial cue for the activation of AgrG projections. Also, an order N-A-G immediately rules out the possibility of analyzing the genitive construction as a GovG, since the latter requires adjacency to the head noun.

286

Chiara Gianollo

I propose that the structural ambiguity of the NG sequence is primarily responsible for the diachronic lability of post-N genitives. In the next sections, I will also argue that conditions on structural economy play a role in the historical dynamics affecting these constructions. The three basic types in (2) are listed in an order that mirrors their degree of syntactic complexity, defined in terms of the interplay between the number of additional projections that have to be generated and the movement operations necessary for licensing. Syntactic complexity plays a crucial role in the process of reanalysis, in that learners’ choices are guided by principles of structural economy in case of ambiguous input (cf. Roberts and Roussou 2003, van Gelderen 2004, and the discussion in Roberts 2007: 127ff and 226ff ). In the analysis of Late Latin genitive constructions that I will give in the next section, it will be argued that the choice between two possible parametric interpretations of the NG string is guided by such principles.

15.3 Late Latin 15.3.1 Corpus My database for Late Latin (LL) is represented by a corpus of c.80,000 words. It is, therefore, much smaller than the database used for Old French (OF), for which a syntactically parsed electronic corpus is available. The included texts date from the beginning of the third century ad (Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis) to the end of the fourth (Peregrinatio Egeriae and the four gospels in the Vulgata translation). If it is true that a major part of the corpus is represented by the gospels, which are translations from the Greek, their uniformity with respect to the native texts observed in the domain of nominal syntax allows for their use as legitimate representatives of a non-artificial variety of Latin (see Gianollo 2011 for arguments in support of this position). I will also make reference to the results of a wider study on Classical Latin (CLL), presented in Gianollo (2005, 2006). In general, the reader is referred to these previous works for a fuller account of the Latin situation, which I will only be able to summarize within the limits of this chapter. 15.3.2 Realization of adnominal arguments in Late Latin Prepositional genitives in the Western Romance varieties are attested since the earliest documents. They share the most fundamental syntactic characteristics (cf. Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Androutsopoulou and Español-Echevarría 2003) and the preposition di/de introducing them can be formally traced back to a common Latin origin, the ablative preposition de. However, the genitive function of the prepositional phrase with de does not appear to be grammaticalized in any documented stage of the Latin language. As seen in section 15.1, the question,

Prepositional genitives in Romance

287

therefore, is whether it is nonetheless possible to detect a commonly inherited property accounting for such apparent parallel development. The inflectional genitive realization was the only way of encoding real arguments within the CLL nominal phrase. This situation persists significantly also in the LL texts included in my survey: the prepositional phrase with de þ ablative is still overwhelmingly found with its typical directional use. Partitive or pseudo-partitive occurrences appear at a comparable rate as that of earlier—especially pre-Classical— texts (cf. Molinelli 1996, Rosén 1999: 137–49, Vincent 1999). The expression of real arguments with de þ ablative is extremely rare, and this conclusion seems to hold also for later attestations (cf. Bonnet 1890: 607f on the few examples found in Gregory of Tours, sixth century, where the original ablative value of the preposition is still clear, and Väänänen 1981 for an overview of documents from the seventh and eighth century). However, despite the retention of the original inflectional system, LL shows an extremely clear-cut shift in the distribution of genitive arguments (cf. Table 15.1). While in CLL genitives occur indifferently and in even distribution in pre- or post-N position, in the LL texts included in my sample genitives almost invariantly follow their head noun, with only a few exceptions, which can be straightforwardly accounted for as idiomatic expressions (cf. Gianollo 2005: 157ff ). A similar shift is not observable with adjectives, which instead occur in pre- and post-N position, at a rate comparable to that of CLL (cf. Table 15.2). The major shift in the distribution of genitives, whose ultimate causes are admittedly unclear (cf. Gianollo 2011), but do not seem to be reducible to concurrent morpho-syntactic changes, results in a decisive loss in syntactic variation with respect to CLL. Moreover, one of the consequences of this shift is that it is no more possible to simultaneously express two arguments of the same head noun. In my LL corpus there are no genuine instances of multiple genitive realization within the same DP. The construction is generally rare also in CLL, but the examples show that it was possible to iterate the genitive structure both in pre- and post-N position, and that, when both genitives were pre-N, the thematic hierarchy (subjective > objective G) had to be strictly obeyed (cf. Table 15.3). TABLE 15.1. Distribution of genitives in Late Latin Genitives Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis Peregrinatio Egeriae Evangelium sec. Matthaeum Evangelium sec. Marcum Evangelium sec. Lucam Evangelium sec. Ioannem

NG

GN

101 (84.2%) 505 (93.5%) 576 (96.6%) 267 (96.4%) 572 (96.9%) 315 (94%)

19 (15.8%) 35 (6.5%) 20 (3.4%) 10 (3.6%) 18 (3.1%) 20 (6%)

Chiara Gianollo

288

TABLE 15.2. Distribution of adjectives in Late Latin Adjectives Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis Peregrinatio Egeriae Evangelium sec. Matthaeum Evangelium sec. Marcum Evangelium sec. Lucam Evangelium sec. Ioannem

NA

AN

52 (50%) 283 (50%) 164 (74%) 90 (60%) 146 (73.4%) 88 (68.8%)

53 (50%) 284 (50%) 58 (26%) 60 (40%) 53 (26.6%) 40 (31.2%)

TABLE 15.3. Co-occurring genitives in Classical Latin (data in Gianollo 2005: 73–8) gng=18 gSngO¼18

ggn=10 gOngS=0

gSgOn=10

ngg=9 gOgSn=0

ngSgO=6

ngOgS=3

Multiple occurrences of ordered, pre-N genitives in CLL were one of the crucial hints towards the analysis of these constructions as realized in an AgrG configuration (cf. 2b.). As for post-N genitives, the main pieces of evidence were represented by the possibility of iteration and the possibility for other DP-internal elements, such as adjectives, to occur between the head noun and the genitive. This excluded the GovG configuration, leading to an analysis in terms of a predicative structure (ModG in 2c.). In LL, the fact that genitives start to be consistently realized to the right of the head noun leads to the generation of an ambiguous input for acquisition: the NG sequence becomes strongly P-ambiguous, in Roberts’ (2007: 233) terms, in the sense that it may be analyzed by the learner according to different parametric values. As we have seen in section 15.1, three possible parametric configurations can yield a NG order. In LL, however, the GovG configuration is ruled out by the absence of the adjacency requirement: as in CLL, adjectives can intervene between the head noun and the genitive, as shown in (7). (7)

a. in novissimo autem die magno festivitatis in last then day big festivity:gen ‘in the last great day of festivity’ (Vulg. Joh. 7.37) b. spatium immensum horti space immense garden:gen ‘the immense space of a garden’ (Passio 4.8)

Prepositional genitives in Romance

289

In Gianollo (2005), Crisma and Gianollo (2006) it has been proposed that the primary evidence available in LL is responsible for triggering the reanalysis of the post-N genitive from type (2c.) to type (2b.). The CLL parametric interpretation of the post-N genitive as a ModG is now ruled out on the basis of (i) empirical evidence, consisting in the absence of multiple occurrences, and (ii) a principle of structural economy, valuing the AgrG configuration as less syntactically complex than the ModG one. The learner opts for the generation of the least possible amount of structure; therefore, in absence of contrary evidence, movement to a functional projection is preferred to the predicative option. Given the existence of N-A-G sequences, as seen in (7), and of pre-N adjectives (cf. Table 15.2 and 7a.), the only position available is the lowest projection below ordered adjectives (GenO in 6). The resulting structure for the DP in example (7a.) is shown in (8): (8)

[D [S-or novissimo [diei [M2 magno [festivitatisj [ÆPj [Ni]]]]]]]

According to this proposal, the reanalysis of the genitive construction, on account of the interaction with adjectival syntax, is responsible for the birth of N(P)-raising, i.e. for the assumption on the part of the learner of a movement operation which takes the noun to land in an intermediate position in the functional layer.1 N(P)-raising is shared by all the Romance languages, and it is therefore highly significant that, if the present reconstruction is correct, it is actually possible to trace back its origin to the common LL stage. In the following section I will argue that precisely the inheritance of this pan-Romance feature and of the post-N genitive will trigger the sequence of changes leading to the system of genitive realization witnessed by Old French, and, ultimately, to the emergence of prepositional genitives.

15.4 Old French 15.4.1 Corpus For Old French (OF), and for the partial overview of Middle French (MF) data that I will present, I have relied on the syntactically parsed electronic corpus MCVF edited by Martineau (2008). I complemented the evidence offered by the MCVF corpus with another text in verses, La Vie de Saint Alexis (eleventh century, 4,636 words), which represents a particularly archaic stage of the language. The MCVF texts included in my search are presented in Table 15.4 (shaded texts are in verses).2

1

For the treatment of CLL post-N adjectives, see Gianollo (2005, 2006), where they are analyzed as originating in a predicative configuration. 2 More information on chronology, authorship, provenance, and the edition followed for each text is provided on the MCVF website. Some dates, which do not correspond to the scholarly consensus, have been modified according to the Complément Bibliographique of the Dictionnaire Étymologique de l’Ancien Français (DEAF). I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out some inconsistencies to me.

Chiara Gianollo

290

TABLE 15.4. Old and Middle French texts from the MCVF corpus used in the study Date

Number of words

Old French (until 1300) La Chanson de Roland Le Voyage de Saint Brendan Leis Willelme Yvain / Le Chevalier au Lion La Charte de Chièvres Aucassin et Nicolette Pseudo-Turpin La Conquête de Constantinople Queste del Saint Graal Le Livre Roisin

c.1100 1120–1125 1150 1177–1181 1194 1190–1250 1195–1205 1205 1220–1225 1283

29,338 10,829 4,026 39,396 1,349 9,828 4,136 33,994 108,678 5,256

Middle French (until 1600) Le XV Joyes du mariage Chroniques, Froissart Formulaire, Morchesne Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles Mémoires, Commynes Lettres, Marguerite de Navarre

1375–1425 1399–1410 1422–1427 1458–1467 1489–1498 1521–1525

33,200 216,520 11,062 147,229 21,934 5,700

Later Hurons, Gendron Annales, Morin

1644 1659–1725

3,663 98,564 784,702

TOTAL

Some of the queries have been performed on the whole material. In other cases I concentrated on La Chanson de Roland as representative of texts in verses, and on La Conquête de Constantinople by Robert de Clari for prose. 15.4.2 Realization of adnominal arguments in Old French OF displays three different constructions for the realization of adnominal arguments: (9)

a. the cas-régime absolu (Foulet 1928): also called Juxtaposition Genitive in the literature, e.g. Arteaga (1995), Delfitto and Paradisi (2009); inflectional realization in the oblique form of the extant two-case declension (tagged BareG in what follows) li filz [le roi d’Arragon] the son the king of Aragon ‘the son of the king of Aragon’ (Charrete 5780)

Prepositional genitives in Romance

291

b. the prepositional phrase introduced by de (tagged DeG in what follows) la teste [d’Agolant] the head of Agolant ‘Agolant’s head’ (Aspremont 10532) c. the prepositional phrase introduced by a la chambre [a la pucele] the room to the girl ‘the girl’s room’ (Perceval 5753) Type (9c.), which is marginally retained in Modern French, is restricted to the expression of [ þ human] arguments, and is always rare in the texts examined. For the present purposes, I will disregard this configuration, to concentrate on the relation between the cas-régime absolu and the main representative of the prepositional construction, type (9b.). In the most ancient text included in the survey, the Vie de Saint Alexis, the distribution of the prepositional phrase introduced by de attests its full grammaticalization as the expression of adnominal arguments. However, prepositional genitives occur alongside inflectional realizations of genitives in the cas-régime absolu. Table 15.5 shows that in the Vie de Saint Alexis the number of occurrences of prepositional genitives only slightly exceeds that of inflected ones. The grammaticalization of prepositional genitives, thus, cannot be mechanically linked to the loss of the inflectional realization, and a long period of co-existence of the two constructions has to be accounted for. As Figure 15.1 shows, the use of the cas-régime absolu decreases during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to disappear by the MF period, following the more general fate of the two-case declension (on which see Schøsler 1973, 1984, Plank 1979, Reenen and Schøsler 2000).3 Already in OF an overt morphological distinction between the nominative (cassujet) and the oblique (cas-régime) was consistently visible only in the masculine TABLE 15.5. Prepositional versus inflected genitives in the Vie de Saint Alexis Genitives

DeG

BareG

Saint Alexis

35 (53.8%)

30 (46.2%)

3 The fact that Froissart in his Chroniques uses relatively many inflectional genitives, and in a remarkably rich variety of syntactic and semantic contexts, could be interpreted as a sign of a longer persistency of the construction in the Northern and Eastern dialects, especially Picard. This would be consistent with the longer preservation, in such varieties, of the two-case declension, due at least in part to the fact that in the Northern regions final -s disappears later (cf. discussion in Schøsler 1973: 260f, Reenen and Schøsler 2000). However, the Middle French texts included in my search are too few and too scattered in time to allow for a safe conclusion on this point. I thank Richard Ingham for suggesting this possibility to me.

292

Chiara Gianollo BareG - ratio to word count

RO L BR AN EN D W D IL AN LE LM YV E CH A IÈ IN V AU RES CN TU IC CO R N PIN ST A Q NT U ES RO TE XV ISIN FR JOY O IS ES SA M RT O RC H CO M CN M N Y LE NE TT S H RE U S R AN ON NA S LE S

0:57 0:50 0:43 0:36 0:28 0:21 0:14 0:07 0:00

FIGURE 15.1 The disappearance of the inflected genitive (column shading indicates the transition from OF to MF).

paradigm of nouns and determiners, as shown in Table 15.6. Most feminine nouns had a unique form for both cases and retained only the morphological marking for plural number. Only the few feminine nouns that did not end in -e muet could mark the cas-sujet singular with an -s, borrowed from the masculine paradigm; in addition to these, a handful of nouns retained a marked cas-sujet (e.g. suer/seror ‘sister’, none/ nonain ‘noon’, Eve/Evain ‘Eve’). In any case, for feminine nouns the two-case distinction was restricted to the singular. Nonetheless, feminine nouns were also allowed in the BareG configuration, although very rarely. This point will, in fact, turn out to be important for the following discussion. 15.4.3 The properties of the cas-régime absolu In this section, I will examine the syntactic behaviour of the OF inflectional genitive construction (type 9a.). In order to do so, I will start from the traditional description of the cas-régime absolu given by Foulet (1928), and discuss it in light of the data coming from my survey on the MCVF corpus.

TABLE 15.6. Case declension in Old French Nouns

Definite article

M

Cas-sujet Cas-régime

sg -s (-z) -Ø

F pl -Ø -s (-z)

sg -Ø -Ø

pl -s (-z) -s (-z)

M sg li le

F pl li les

sg la la

pl les les

Prepositional genitives in Romance

293

Foulet (1928: 14–23) offers an analysis of the distribution of the inflectional construction, which can be summarized in the following points: (10)

Typical semantic notions expressed a. kinship, alliance, leadership b. alienable and inalienable possession Preferences c. the complement is overwhelmingly singular d. the complement is preferably a proper name Requirements e. the complement must be [ þ human] f. it must play the role of subject/possessor g. it must always be definite h. it must immediately follow the head noun

To these points it should be added that, according to the data in the corpus, BareG is never iterated, i.e. there can be no more than one BareG for DP. Studies such as e.g. Palm (1977), Herslund (1980), Schøsler (1984), Arteaga (1995), Delfitto and Paradisi (2009), have already confirmed the accuracy of Foulet’s description with respect to points (10a.,b.,e.). I will rather comment on the remaining ones, which are of more direct import to understand the syntactic configuration in which OF inflected genitives occur.4 Table 15.7 shows the distribution of inflected genitives in two representative OF texts, according to (i) their order with respect to the head noun; (ii) the nature of the complement with respect to the proper name/common noun distinction; (iii) the complement’s number.5 TABLE 15.7. Distribution of inflected genitives in Old French BareG Roland Constantinople

NG

GN

Proper (sg)

Common

TOT

85 ( þ 1) 113

4 4 ( þ 1)

50 24

40 (36 sg) 94 (89 sg)

90 118

In my system, the [ þ human] feature does not play a syntactically relevant role and, as such, remains unexplained. Delfitto and Paradisi (2009) propose that it may be related to the visibility of case morphology, necessary to obtain the cas-régime absolu configuration. 5 In the second and third column, the number in parenthesis indicates constructions which are retrieved by the MCVF search, but which I have set apart in my analysis in order to comply with the criteria that I have adopted in my analysis of Latin. They are, respectively, a construction with a gapped noun, and an instance of en-cliticization. On the other hand, in order to favour the replicability of the query, I have kept in the total a number of structures which are tagged as inflected genitives in the corpus, but which may not, in fact, represent adnominal arguments: these are forms of cas-régime complementing the noun mi ‘middle’, which however appears in most occurrences to form a complex preposition together with par and en (e.g. en mi la pleine tere, Roland 3278). 4

294

Chiara Gianollo

Table 15.7 largely confirms point (10c.), also in its not being an absolute restriction, since plural complements are not impossible. Point (10d.), on the other hand, does not appear to qualify as an accurate generalization, since common nouns may even represent the majority of inflectional realizations in some texts. It has been long noticed (e.g. Togeby 1974, Palm 1977, and more recently Delfitto and Paradisi 2009) that also generalization (10f.) is incorrect: although there is a predominance of possessive and subject-like relations, the cas-régime absolu can also have the function of an objective genitive, as in (11): (11)

a. pur amur Alexis for love Alexis ‘for the love towards Alexis’ (Saint Alexis 1529) b. le servise Jhesucrist the service Jesus ‘the service of/to Jesus’ (Queste 260)

In the corpus examined by Palm (1977), represented by literary texts of the second half of the twelfth century–first quarter of the thirteenth century and partially overlapping with ours, over a total of 1,395 BareG with singular nouns, 62 (4%) can be analyzed as objective genitives. The rate is comparable to that observed among prepositional complement introduced by a (3%), and not substantially different from that found among DeG (9%). Turning to the definiteness requirement in (10g.), our search over the corpus confirms the fact that the BareG must always be definite. No examples occur of article-less inflectional genitive DPs, apart from the cases where proper names, pronouns like celui, or definiteness-inducing elements such as possessive adjectives or demonstratives are present. The only cases where the complement can be indefinite are found after the noun mi ‘middle’ (e.g. par mi un val herbus ‘across a grassy valley’, Roland 994). This construction, however, is better analyzed as headed by a newly grammaticalized complex preposition en mi, par mi (Modern French parmi), governing, as all other prepositions, the oblique case, which is therefore not a real BareG anymore (cf. fn. 5; cf. also the fact that after mi the complement can also be [  human]). Thus, it is possible to conclude that the inflectional genitive always needs a strong element in D. The definiteness requirement does not hold for the matrix DP, as is instead implied by Delfitto and Paradisi’s (2009) treatment of the BareG construction. Although examples in the corpus are rare in argument position (whereas in predicative position article-less DPs can more freely occur), they show that DPs with an indefinite determiner can have a BareG complement, as in (12). (12)

a. un’ymagene Apolin le felun an image Apolin the traitor ‘an image of Apolin the traitor’ (Roland 3252)

Prepositional genitives in Romance

295

b. uns serjans l’empereur a servant the emperor ‘a servant of the emperor’ (Constantinople 1565) Apparently, therefore, no agreement in definiteness features holds between the matrix and the genitive DPs. This is a first, important hint toward the fact that a construct-state analysis for these constructions is not correct (since definiteness inheritance is a necessary property of construct states, cf. Ritter 1991, Siloni 1997, Longobardi 1995, 1996). A second piece of evidence against a construct-state analysis is represented by the fact that, as shown in (13), adjectives may intervene between the determiner and the head noun in the matrix DP: the N(P), therefore, cannot be argued to raise to the projection of D, as is commonly assumed for Semitic (and marginal Romance) construct states (on the frequent confusion between Romance construct states and the cas-régime absolu construction cf. Longobardi 1995: 307, fn. 14, and references cited therein). (13) a. a la grant feste Seint Michel del peril to the solemn celebration Saint Michel of.the danger ‘to the solemn celebration of St. Michael, (patron) of the danger’ (Roland 125) b. le grant orgoill Rollant the great pride Roland ‘Roland’s great pride’ (Roland 1797) c. le boen cuer sa dame the good heart his lady ‘his lady’s good heart’ (Yvain 7066) This last observation brings us to our last point, (10h.), relative to the position of BareG. As seen in Table 15.7 above, the post-N order is overwhelmingly dominant (respectively in 95.5% and 96% of the cases). Foulet (1928: 18f ) states that pre-N casrégime absolu is typically found with the name ‘God’. With other nouns, the order is almost always found in the rhyming part of the verse. For the purposes of this chapter, the pre-N inflected genitive will be considered a relic and will be disregarded in the following discussion. In order to fully confirm (10h.), also the requisite of immediate adjacency has to be checked against the data in the corpus. Foulet (1928: 17–8) states that a word appears between the head noun and the inflected genitive only very seldom. The intervening element, judging from Foulet’s examples, is never part of the DP, but results from independent sentence-level parameters, governing the position of connectives and verbs, which are most often prosodically weak: (14)

a. Li feme aussi Mahiu l’Anstier the wife also Mahiu the Anstier ‘also the wife of Mahiu l’Anstier’ (Le Jeu de la Feuillée 296)

296

Chiara Gianollo b. Caÿn, qui freres fu Abel Cain who brother was Abel ‘Cain, who was Abel’s brother’ (Le Vair Palefroi 882)

The query on the MCVF corpus and on the Vie de Saint Alexis confirms the adjacency requirement. In particular, adjectives, the most likely candidates for DPinternal intervention, never occur between a noun and a BareG.6 Since this aspect, as with LL, turns out to be crucial for the diachronic interpretation, I will postpone a more thorough discussion of the data to the following section, where I will propose my analysis for the structural configuration in which BareG is licensed, and reconstruct its relation to the Late Latin inheritance. To sum up this section, I propose in (15) below a modified version of (10), where some generalizations are reframed or complemented according to my empirical findings (in italics): (15)

Typical semantic notions expressed a. kinship, alliance, leadership b. alienable and inalienable possession Preferences c. the complement is overwhelmingly singular, but there is no ban against plural DPs d. the complement does not show a distinct preference for being a proper name Requirements e. the complement must be [ þ human] f. it can express any argument of the head noun g. it must always be definite, but there is no obligatory definiteness agreement with the matrix DP h. it must immediately follow the head noun i. it can never be iterated

15.4.4 From Late Latin to Old French In this section I will argue that OF inflected genitives are, in fact, a continuation of Latin from a syntactic point of view. More precisely, I will propose that they represent the result of a further reanalysis of the LL construction. I will further argue that OF prepositional realizations (type 9b.) share the same structural source. Some of the conditions in (15) suggest that the BareG construction represents the outcome of the transmission of some fundamental parametric values relative to the 6 The co-occurrence of adjectives and BareG is quite rare, as can be seen by the data presented in Table 15.8. Therefore, as an anonymous reviewer notices, this conclusion is based on a limited number of examples, which will be hopefully expanded by future research over a broader corpus.

Prepositional genitives in Romance

297

nominal domain from LL to OF. If it is impossible to straightforwardly derive the OF system from the CLL one, the hypothesis that the OF BareG inherits the characteristics of the intermediate LL stage sheds light on a number of shared properties: (i) the fact that the noun raises to an intermediate projection in the functional layer, landing in between the ordered adjectival projections, (ii) the fact that a noniterated, inflectional genitive, which is able to express any thematic relation with the head noun, occurs in a post-N position. We may add to this the observation that the residual pre-N instances of cas-régime absolu appear in a position that is arguably the same of the residual pre-N genitives in LL, i.e. in the high AgrG projection, immediately below D. Despite these basic similarities, the OF construction displays an innovative structural property with respect to the LL post-N genitive realized in the low AgrG projection, namely strict adjacency with respect to the head noun. We have seen in (7) that this was not the case in LL, as N-A-G sequences were possible. Therefore, to corroborate the hypothesis that the cas-régime absolu continues the LL post-N genitive, a principled explanation has to be found as to why the new requirement (15h.) would arise. In what follows, I will try to do so, connecting the adjacency requirement to another peculiar feature of BareG, the definiteness requirement on the complement (15g.), and establishing a structural parallelism with the DeG configuration. I ended the last section by discussing the respective positioning of BareG and adjectives. In Table 15.8 I present an overview of the data obtained from the MCVF corpus, also with respect to the DeG configuration. Adjectives can co-occur with the BareG construction (cf. also 13), but only if they precede the head noun. The only safe example of adjective intervention in a DP hosting a BareG configuration comes from a Middle French text, Froissart’s Chroniques, in a highly lexicalized expression (dou frere germain le duch de Bretagne ‘of the duke of Brittany’s brother-german’, Froissart 10048). The corpus study demonstrates that the requisite of adjacency imposed on such a realization is also shared, until the Middle French period, by the prepositional genitive. This is a noteworthy difference with respect to Modern French, where the intervention of an adjective between the head noun and the prepositional genitive is perfectly grammatical (in (16a.) the adjective can only be post-N, while in (16b.) it could also precede): (16)

a. la voiture italienne de Marie ‘Mary’s Italian car’ b. le discours controversé du président ‘the president’s controversial speech’

298

Chiara Gianollo

TABLE 15.8. Co-occurrence of adjectives and genitives

A-N-BareG N-A-BareG A-N-DeG N-A-DeG

Roland

Constantinople

3 0 16

2 0 64

1

0

Rest of corpus 12 2 (1?) 2153 (all de-PPs) 1290 (est. DeGen)7 165 (DeGen)

The only example of a N-A-DeG sequence in Roland shows, in fact, a still strong ablatival value of the de-PP, which may therefore not qualify as a proper argument: (17)

A colps pleners de lor espiez with strokes great of/from their pikes ‘with great strokes of/from their pikes’ (Roland 3388)

The counter examples found in the corpus are extremely rare in the OF period (4 to 7, depending on the uncertain interpretation of the de-PP as a real argumental genitive or as an adjunct in some cases). They slightly increase in the MF period, but the great majority of the instances counted in Table 15.8 (104 out of 165, 63%) are attested in the latest text included in the corpus, Morin’s Annales de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal. Also another fact observable in the corpus differentiates the DeG configuration from the modern prepositional genitive: there are no instances in which DeG is iterated. In Modern French, instead, it is possible to have multiple occurrences of prepositional genitives within the same DP, as shown by the example in (18) (taken from Sportiche 1990; multiple orders are possible): (18)

Le portrait d’Aristote de Rembrandt du Musée d’Orsay The portrait of Aristotle of Rembrandt of the Musée d’Orsay ‘Rembrandt’s portrait of Aristotle in the Musée d’Orsay’

What is more, there are no instances in the corpus where DeG and BareG cooccur as realizations of arguments of the same head noun. This hints toward the fact that they may compete for the same position. The only difference between DeG and 7 In the case of the A-N-DeG combination, the automated query on the corpus retrieves all immediately post-N PPs headed by de, without recognizing their function: thus, for instance, also partitives and complements of quality and material are included. Due to the large number of occurrences, I did not perform a case-by-case analysis for this combination; therefore I offer in the table both the total number of de-PPs and an estimate of the number of argumental genitive among them (60% of the total). The estimate is based on the case-by-case exam performed on La Chanson de Roland (55% argumental genitives) and on La Conquête de Constantinople (64%). It is admittedly stipulative, and should be corroborated by more precise data in the future, especially with respect to the diachronic developments in the functions of de-PPs.

Prepositional genitives in Romance

299

BareG observed in the literature (e.g. Foulet 1928, Palm 1977) is that, especially in the older texts, de is preferably used with animals, inanimate referents, or (human) kinds, and when the relation is that of an objective genitive. However, these are only tendencies: the examples in (19) show that, since the earliest stages of the language, DeG could express any thematic relation—respectively, possessor, agent, theme— with the noun: (19)

a. l’ honur del secle the honor of.the century ‘the honor of the century’ (Saint Alexis 200) b. cunseill d’orguill counsel of pride ‘a counsel of pride’ (Roland 196) c. de tut cest mund . . . jugedor of all this world judges ‘judges of all this world’ (Saint Alexis 364)

My hypothesis is that, in fact, the DeG and the BareG realizations have a uniform structural source. They are licensed in a configuration that inherits from Late Latin the post-N position, its non-iterability, and the possibility of realizing any thematic role, thus the fundamental syntactic cues. It is further reanalyzed in OF, however, on account of changes in the morphological cues. The crucial morphological factor is deflexion. Jespersen (1918), Carstairs-McCarthy (1987), Plank (1992) have shown that the morpho-syntactic development of the English genitive was conditioned by the increased uniformity of the genitive exponent, i.e. by the reduction of the declensional system to a unique genitive mark for all declensional classes. The same change can be observed in OF, apart from lexical exceptions. Moreover, most feminine nouns occur in the construction completely unmarked for case, and are in fact quite rare. Adjectives display a strong tendency to lose case marking: there is a unique form for feminine agreement and for masculine forms ending in -e; adjectives ending in a consonant show many exceptions. In most instances with masculine nouns, the only unambiguously case-marked element within the genitive constituent is the element in the determiner position (article, demonstrative, possessive adjective; cf. Palm 1977, Reenen and Schøsler 2000). In this situation, OF case morphology is too weak to represent, in the process of language acquisition, a cue to the movement of the genitive constituent to a higher agreement projection: thus, the head noun’s extended projection loses its ability to license nominal arguments in an AgrG configuration (type 2b.).8 8 Notice that here no isomorphism is necessarily assumed between syntactic structure and morphological exponence. Rather, morphology is considered to be one of the expressions of a certain parametric value, representing a surface cue to parameter setting during acquisition. The impoverishment of such a

300

Chiara Gianollo

Given the disappearance of the morphological cue, a further reanalysis takes place at this stage, leading to the positional licensing of the genitive constituent in a government configuration (type 2a.). A GovG configuration cannot be iterated (condition 15i.); it also requires strict adjacency between the head noun and the complement (condition 15h.), and that is why the N-A-G sequence, probably already underrepresented in the primary data, given the tendency of OF adjectives to occur prevalently in pre-N position (cf. Boucher 2002, 2004), becomes ungrammatical. The fact that in OF the post-N genitive is ‘frozen’ in place by the licensing under government does not imply, however, that raising out of the lexical shell is lost; rather, the whole NP complex reaches a higher position in the functional layer, preserving the pan-Romance N(P)-raising parametric option. In the spirit of the treatment of lexical case by Bayer, Bader, and Meng (2001), I assume that the genitive complement takes the form of an outer KP, embedding a DP and acting as a probe for the valuation of formal features of the complement. Both inflectional endings and prepositions—or at least functional prepositions, with a particularly impoverished set of lexical features, such as de, cf. Vincent (1999)—can act as exponents of K0. More specifically, the requirement for K0 to be filled can be satisfied by means of various strategies: (20)

Move a. proper names (N-to-D-to-K) b. overt definite determiners c. possessive adjectives Merge d. functional preposition de

The merge option yields the DeG configuration, while the move option results in BareG. This derives the requirement in (15g.) that the constituent in the cas-régime absolu be always definite, accounting in a principled way for Foulet’s (1928: 20) observation that the complement in this configuration ‘représente toujours un individu spécifiquement désigné, distinct de tous les autres individus’. The semantic properties of the construction, under this account, are only a by-product of the morphosyntactic requirement to fill K0. An overt indefinite determiner is not able to satisfy such requirement because it is not in D0, but originates in a lower functional projection (the cardinality projection CardP, according to Lyons 1999). The condition on K0 proposed for OF is reminiscent of a similar morphological requirement holding for post-N genitives in Modern German, the so-called ‘genitive cue can conspire in creating a situation of strong P-ambiguity, thus triggering reanalysis (cf. the discussion in Anderson 2002 and Roberts 2007: 136ff ). I thank an anonymous reviewer for inviting me to make this point explicit.

Prepositional genitives in Romance

301

rule’ (cf. Gallmann 1998, Lindauer 1998): according to it, a non-prepositional post-N genitive is only possible if (i) represented by a proper name, or if (ii) there is at least one inflected form within the DP (determiner, possessive pronoun or other inflected pronoun, adjective with strong suffix). Further research is needed to assess whether the diachronic emergence of this requirement can be linked to a reanalysis of the configuration for post-N genitives along the lines proposed for OF. The cas-régime absolu and the OF prepositional genitives have the same underlying structure and coexist, since the earliest documents, and until the two-case declension eventually disappears. The DeG configuration, being subject to no constraint relative to the syntactic and semantic nature of its DP complement, is bound to become more frequent. The eventual generalization of the non-ambiguous prepositional realization is very natural under current assumptions on processing. It also complies with the ‘merge-over-move’ preference driving grammaticalization processes (Roberts and Roussou 2003, van Gelderen 2004). The mentioned increase in the occurrence of the N-A-G sequence after the Middle French period signals that, at some point, the prepositional construction itself undergoes the reanalysis which brings about the ‘modern’ characteristics of degenitives, i.e. the possibility of non-adjacency with the head noun and the possibility of multiple occurrences within the same DP. In the proposed system, these properties are compatible with an analysis in terms of a ModG configuration (type 2c.). This further diachronic step, which would attest once more to the lability of the post-N genitive, must however be investigated on a much broader textual basis. Once a substantial structural parallelism between inflectional and prepositional genitives is established, the ultimate source of the prepositional construction can be traced back to the crucial shift occurring in Late Latin, which unequivocally transmits to the daughter languages genitives in the post-N position. My account, although grounded into different assumptions about the nature of genitive licensing, is in substantial agreement with the previous formal treatment of the cas-régime absolu construction proposed by Arteaga (1995): the diachronic processes affecting this form of genitive is ultimately due to the featural weakening of the functional projection licensing it, in turn connected to morphological impoverishment. Ultimately, if we assume, as is plausible, that similar conditions may have hold for the other Western Medieval Romance varieties, the reconstruction proposed here accounts for the parallel development of prepositional genitives in these languages, whose ancestor only had an inflectional realization. Under the present assumptions, a diachronic process that is traditionally interpreted as an instance of (1b.) turns out to be, instead, at least for OF, an instance of (1c.), i.e. the chain-effect of an inherited change happening in LL.

302

Chiara Gianollo

15.5 Conclusion In this chapter, I have traced the history of genitive realization from Late Latin to Old French. I have proposed that a bundle of parametric features, crucially comprising the realization of genitives in a post-nominal Agree configuration and the operation of noun raising, is transmitted from Late Latin to Old French and is responsible for the retention of the genitive construction commonly referred to as cas-régime absolu. However, the Old French construction displays some innovative structural properties with respect to the originating Latin construction, most notably strict adjacency to the head noun; moreover, it alternates since the first texts with the prepositional expression of genitives. The existence of a mixed system shows that the grammaticalization of prepositional genitives cannot be mechanically linked to the loss of the inflectional realization, but also points to some restrictions that prevented the inflectional genitive from being fully productive. I have argued that the ultimate explanation for this state of affairs has to be sought in the interplay between morphology and syntax. The more general conclusion that can be drawn from my analysis is that postnominal genitive is diachronically labile because the space of parametric variation within genitive syntax and the conspiracy with the values of other parameters allows, in principle, for three different grammars for NG sequences. The Old French data seem to suggest that choosing among the three in language acquisition may also be a matter of morphology, as deflexion interacts to various degrees. In evaluating the salience of structural parallelisms for comparative and genealogical purposes, the potential polymorphism of constructions such as post-nominal genitives has to be carefully taken into account. Some parametric values are more likely to change than others: in some cases their lability can be attributed to the fact that they are subject to the implicational effect of superordinate parameters (Roberts 2007: 357), but in other cases, like the one under exam here, the ambiguity of the trigger arising under certain conditions may represent the decisive factor.

Primary sources Vulgata Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Barbara and Kurt Aland et al. (1994). Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis Van Beek, Cornelius (1936). Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt.

Prepositional genitives in Romance

303

Bastiaensen, Antoon A. R. (1987). Acta Martyrum. Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla.

Peregrinatio Egeriae Heraeus, Wilhelm (1908) (1939). Silviae vel potius Aetheriae Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta, Heidelberg: Winter. Prinz, Otto (1960). Itinerarium Egeriae, Heidelberg: Winter.

La Vie de Saint Alexis Paris, Gaston (1872). La Vie de Saint Alexis. Paris: Franck. Storey, Christopher (1968). La Vie de Saint Alexis, Texte du Manuscrit de Hildersheim (L). Textes Littéraires Français 148. Geneva: Droz.

Corpus MCVF Martineau, France (2008). Corpus MCVF: Modéliser le changement: les voies du français. U. Ottawa, http://www.voies.uottawa.ca/corpus_pg_fr.html

16 Convergence in parametric phylogenies Homoplasy or principled explanation? GIUSEPPE LONGOBARDI

16.1 Diachronic theory, historical linguistics, and ‘laws of history’ Most work in historical formal syntax since Lightfoot’s (1979) groundbreaking book has been concerned with the development of theories posing general conditions on so-called syntactic ‘change’ (essentially a metaphor for imperfect transmission of I-languages across generations of speakers—cf. Clark and Roberts’ 1993 and Niyogi and Berwick’s 1995 Logical Problem of Language Change); issues addressed in such work can be defined ‘diachronic theory’ issues and their form often ultimately amounts to something like the following: (1)

Given two I-languages L1 and L2, different and known to be H-related (Crisma and Longobardi 2009: 61), which theory of the initial state of the mind S0 and of acquisition principles can best explain the shape taken by L2?

Lightfoot’s (1999) ‘local causes’ approach, which rules out biologically improbable explanations of linguistic historical phenomena, like teleological ‘laws of history’, is conceptually certain to be correct and continues to be worth stressing as a foundational tenet of the field; notice, however, that within such a framework, most practice

1

The relevant definitions can be summarized as follows: 1) An I-language L2 derives from an I-language L1 if and only if a. L2 is acquired on the basis of a primary corpus generated by L1 or b. L2 derives from L3 and L3 derives from L1 2) Two linguistic objects X and Y (I-languages or subparts of them) are H-related if and only if one derives from the other or there is a Z from which both derive 3) Two H-related I-languages are H-contiguous if and only if 1)a. applies

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

305

has reduced ‘H-related’ to ‘H-contiguous’ and diachronic theory to a compounded application of general ‘synchronic’ theory (indeed a pursuit of the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition and of its solutions, aiming at classical explanatory adequacy in the sense of Chomsky 1964). This strategy has been very successful in enlarging our conception of UG and in establishing the relevance of diachronic work for this goal (cf. previous DiGS volumes). However, most longer-range historical problems (e.g. when we don’t know in advance if or how much two languages are related) have escaped this approach, of course. Such problems include some of the most classical and genuine historical issues in linguistics, e.g. like the following: (2)

a. Given Lx and Ly (at some non-trivial distance in space and time), are they demonstrably (i.e. chance-proof) H-related? b. To what extent are they H-related? Given Lx, Ly, Lz, which two are more (likely to be) H-related? c. What are the sources of similarity between Lx and Ly (inheritance, areal contact, chance, or other)?

Yet, it should be obvious that pursuing these issues is a task of high relevance and presents some salient advantages for formal linguistics. First of all, answering questions like those in (2) may determine actual growth of knowledge about past events, a major objective of historical investigations and also a crucial component of all historical explanations, in the sense defined in Longobardi (2003). Second, hypotheses on previously undecided issues of language relatedness usually yield insights for neighbouring disciplines (cf. Renfrew’s 1987 so called ‘New Synthesis’ of archaeology, linguistics, genetics . . . ) and may thus justify a historical paradigm in syntax as a contribution to general knowledge, beyond its intrinsic interest for linguistic theory. Finally, success in answering (2) may contribute even more widely to establishing formal syntax, especially parametric syntax, as an autonomous historical paradigm, which will not be just a ‘corollary’ of the synchronic one, but can indeed guide and support the theoretical investigations of the latter on the basis of a new domain of evidence. This line is suggested by a parallel with nineteenth century linguistics: the study of issues like (2) in the lexicon and sound structure preceded and grounded the development of a satisfactory theory of etymology, phonological change, and ultimately of phonological structure itself. Therefore, I claim that formal syntax may now both address genuine historical issues, providing new tools to solve them, and in turn raise further intriguing questions and evidence about the explanatory power of a theory of the language faculty initial state S0 and of grammar acquisition. Here I will attempt to exemplify how by addressing (in an admittedly very idealized way) a puzzling issue of type (2c.), involving precisely a long-term phenomenon, namely parallel development, and seemingly hinting at teleological approaches.

306

Giuseppe Longobardi

16.2 Background and methods: parameters in quantitative historical linguistics Within a parametric theory of syntax (from Chomsky 1981 on), the core grammar of any natural language can in principle be represented by a string of binary symbols (along with a crucial extra null symbol for unset parameters, cf. below), each of them coding a parameter value: such strings can be unambiguously collated, hence parameter values can be readily compared (Roberts 1998). On this basis, it has been argued that quantitative parametric phylogenies are possible (Longobardi 2003): thus, language distances and chance probability of agreements can in principle be measured through a parametric comparison method (PCM) and turn out to be empirically significant in a first phylogenetic experiment on a specific module of grammar (Longobardi and Guardiano 2009), based on sixty-three tentative binary parameters of DP-internal structure. In PCM, parametric distances between pairs of languages can be computed basically from the number of identically or differently set parameters: e.g. Italian and Greek turned out to have a relation , meaning forty identically set and ten oppositely set parameters, with thirteen irrelevant comparisons (i.e. cases where at least one of the two languages exhibits an unset value). This last point is fundamental. In fact, parameters exhibit an implicational structure (Baker 2001), which Longobardi and Guardiano (2009) pointed out to be extremely pervasive within the same module of grammar. Such implications can be logical in some cases, empirical in others: the impressive depth attained by their deductive structure within the DP module is apparent in the statement of the implications in the first column of Table 16.1 and visually revealed by the graphic elaboration thereof made by Rigon (2009), both reported here in the Appendix at the end of this chapter, but a more focused exemplification is provided in the next section. As a consequence, parameter values have three possible states: þ ,  , 0, the latter meaning that the value is not set in a certain language, as irrelevant or completely predictable owing to the setting of other parameters. From the ordered pairs of identities and differences, a monadic distance D between any two languages can be computed, e.g. a Jaccard/Tanimoto distance (in fact a normalized Hamming distance: D ¼ d/(d þ i) ), and from a distance matrix so produced quite a plausible tree for twenty-three modern languages2 was automatically (by means of Phylip’s Kitsch program, with bootstrapped input under 1,000 resamplings) generated, presented in Figure 16.1. 2 Italian (It), Salentino (Sal), Spanish (Sp), French (Fr), Portuguese (Ptg), Rumanian (Rum), Grico (Gri), Modern Greek (Grk), English (E), German (D), Norwegian (Nor), Bulgarian (Blg), Serbo-Croatian (SC), Russian (Rus), Irish (Ir), Welsh (Wel), Hebrew (Heb), Arabic (Ar), Wolof (Wo), Hungarian (Hu), Finnish (Fin), Hindi (Hi), Basque (Bas).

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

307

Ir Wel Sal It Fr Sp Ptg Rum Nor E D Gri Grk SC Rus Blg Hi Fin Hu Heb Ar Wo Bas FIGURE 16.1 Phylogenetic tree from Longobardi and Guardiano (2009).

This way, generative syntactic theory provides reasonable hope of being able to address problems of type (2a.) and (2b.), hopefully even some hardly addressable at all through the classical lexical and phonological methods (Longobardi and Guardiano 2009, Colonna et al. 2010). At the same time, PCM makes conceptually possible a new and most promising type of cultural phylogenies.

16.3 Intermezzo: the pervasive nature of parametric implications We noticed before that, especially within compact modules of grammar, parameters tend to show an intricate implicational structure: an impressive example in Longobardi and Guardiano’s (2009) tentative formalization of the DP module is provided by the consequences of parameter 7 (cf. Table 16.1 in the Appendix). P7 governs the requirement that the definite reading of a nominal argument be marked at least in the subset of cases in which that nominal with the same designatum has already been mentioned in the same discourse. This parameter is obviously set to þ in languages with a so-called definite article, like the Romance ones, but to  in, say, Latin or Russian. Now, the value  at p7 neutralizes, or contributes to neutralizing, the relevance of fifteen other parametric choices in the Longobardi and Guardiano sample.

308

Giuseppe Longobardi

In particular p8, p12, p15, p62 simply require that p7 be set to þ , to be relevant. P8 asks if a language generalizes the overt marking of definiteness to environments where no previous mention of the designatum has been made, including e.g. also cases of situative Unika (Ebert 1970) or of definite generics like ‘The dog has four legs’. Languages doing so apparently require a definite marker in all the environments of p7 as well, suggesting a typical subset strategy in the grammaticalization of the so-called definite article and, thus, the implication. P12 asks if the definite marker of a language is a bound morpheme cliticizing on the head noun, as e.g. in Rumanian, or not, therefore it logically presupposes some amount of definiteness (at least that of p7) to be grammaticalized. This is obviously also the case for p15, which asks if the definiteness of the head of a relative clause is marked on the introducer of the relative clause itself, as e.g. in Arabic, or not. P62, a more tentative parametric hypothesis, asks whether or not a definite genitive argument necessarily transmits its definite value to the head noun, as in ‘the man’s book’ or in Semitic construct state. This latter too is a pertinent question only if a language grammaticalizes some amount of definiteness to begin with. P10, p22, p55, and p63 have a disjunctive implicational condition: namely, to be relevant, they require that p7 be set to þ , unless p5 and p6 are set to  . P5 and p6 govern the existence of feature (in particular, number) concord between the D position and the head noun. The lack of adequate number exponence on the head noun, in fact, has far-reaching syntactic consequences: it prevents the existence of bare argument nouns (Delfitto and Schroten 1991), forcing the generalized presence of some overt determiner (an article essentially neutral between definite/indefinite), even in languages which appear not to grammaticalize definiteness (e.g. Basque). Thus, p10, p22, and p63 are relevant only in the presence of a definite or of a ‘general’ article, in this sense. P10 asks whether articles are subclassified for distal/proximate distinctions (as e.g. in Wolof and one variety of Basque) or not (as in most European languages), logically depending on the very existence of articles in the language. The implication of p22, instead, embodies a more controversial and quite consequential typological generalization: namely, that a true count marker (obligatorily opposing count to mass singular indefinite nominals at least under certain defined conditions, such as a specific reading: a so-called ‘indefinite article’) is only present in languages which also have a definite (or general, in the sense above) article. P55 governs the possibility for demonstratives to replace (cf. Italian or English) rather than cooccur with (e.g. Greek or Arabic) articles, hence presupposes the existence of the latter, as formalized in the disjunctive condition in question. Finally, p63 states that certain languages may choose to mark through the presence of an article names of geographic extensions (e.g. countries and regions) as opposed to non-extensional ones (e.g. cities and ‘small’ islands: Longobardi 1987, 1997): rather naturally, this option seems to only concern languages which independently display a category of ‘articles’.

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

309

The third and last category of implications is that triggered by p7 by transitivity, namely p11, p13, p14, p23, p24, p50, and p56. Thus, p11, asking if a language obligatorily uses some special determiner instead of the straight definite article, whenever referring to a salient discourse topic, has been taken to depend on not having other subclassifications of the semantic domain of definiteness, such as the one produced by  at p10, which in turn depends on p7. The same is true for p13 and p14 with respect to p12. the first implicational hypothesis is that definite markers occurring in D can be doubled enclitically on head nouns only if in some cases they are so instantiated on the noun alone (i.e. þ p12); the second implication results from the generalization that only in languages which do NOT instantiate definite enclitics on the noun, does it remain relevant to ask whether definiteness can be marked on APs or not. P23 deals with the feature count and is a generalization of, and therefore depends on, p22 (in turn depending on p7, as hinted at above) exactly as, in dealing with the feature definite, p8 depended on p7 above. P24 asks if features like count or bounded reference are in some language realized as enclitic on the noun (cf. probably Sinhalese), exactly like definiteness is in Scandinavian or Rumanian: therefore, of course, such features must be grammatically represented, hence p24 depends on p22 or p23. The main effects of p50 (governing attraction to D of various referential elements, among which proper names: Longobardi 1994, 2005) appear to be superficially neutralized in languages in which D may remain empty with almost all interpretations, i.e. those which do not overtly represent the full amount of definiteness; hence the implication from p8. Given that p8 depends on p7, the latter is indirectly responsible for p50 as well. Lastly, p56, governing the option of using possessives essentially as definite determiners (‘my book’ versus It. ‘mio libro’: Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, among others) seems conceptually and typologically to depend on full grammaticalization of definiteness, thus on þ p8 again. Therefore, the set of implicational assumptions embodied in the parametric sample of Longobardi and Guardiano’s (2009) preliminary experiment, as selectively exemplified in this discussion, are deductively quite deep, to an extent which could only be suspected in Baker’s (2001) pioneering book. Moreover, the empirical plausibility of such implicational structure is corroborated not only by its descriptive typological scope but precisely also by the correctness of the first phylogenetic results generated by this very system of parameters and parameter values (cf. the tree in section 16.2 above).

16.4 The puzzle of parametric convergence Nonetheless, when a few ancient languages are tentatively introduced into the pattern of Longobardi and Guardiano (2009), there appears a problematic residue of this approach affecting the balance between the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ dimensions in the distribution of parameter values: a priori, in linguistic evolution,

310

Giuseppe Longobardi

supposing that E-languages constantly and randomly change, we expect sister languages to progressively diverge through time both from their common protolanguage and from each other. Under a reasonable assumption of phylogenetic parsimony (given the enormous number of possible changes, minimize the hypotheses of independent parallel developments), this is the trivial ‘Babelic’ counterpart of the slightly less evident Anti-Babelic principle of Guardiano and Longobardi (2005): there is no general internal force pushing separate languages to become either especially different or especially similar. A classical problem is that sometimes this expectation is not met, i.e. some amount of prima facie improbable convergence arises (a phenomenon perspicuously termed homoplasy in evolutionary biology), and in certain linguistic domains it is clearly measurable (a crucial point of strength of PCM is indeed that it allows a precise mathematical characterization of the amount of syntactic diversity between languages/dialects, at any possible distance in time and space). The structure of nominal syntax across the major Romance languages precisely provides a case in point: the amount of parametric convergence of these languages ranges far beyond what could be expected on the grounds of chance alone and calls for an explanation. In other words, in generative syntactic terms it turns out to be easier to prove the unity of modern Romance languages as a family than the common origin of each of them from Latin. Consider the distance matrix of Longobardi and Guardiano (2009) (Table 16.2 in the Appendix): the distance between Classical Greek (late fifth century bc Attic) and Latin (classical age prose) is 0.06 (corresponding to ), between modern Greek and modern Italian it rises to 0.20 (corresponding to ). This data respects both the expectation of progressive divergence and, since nine identities and eight differences were added through history (almost 50-50% distribution of identities and differences among the parameters newly become relevant), also the idea that the development was indeed random enough. The progressive divergence (in principle from a common IE pattern) is minimally detectable already comparing Latin with later (and more coeval) New Testament Greek Koiné (0.12, ). Of course, the expectations raised by the assumptions of separate and random vertical development can be predictably disrupted by the intervention of horizontal transmission. The relation between Grico (a minority Greek variety spoken in Salento, South-Eastern Italy, for already a debated number of centuries, and surrounded by Italian dialects) and Italian is a good exemplification in this respect: 0.10 corresponding to , where exactly five parameters in Grico have values identical to Italian and opposite to homeland Greek, precisely suggesting the same evolution as for the latter, i.e. a certain amount of divergence moderated by the interference produced by the historically known contact with Italian varieties. But consider now the relations between classical Latin and five contemporary Romance varieties, on one side (first columns in (3) and (4)), and those among such varieties (further columns), on the other:

Convergence in parametric phylogenies (3)

Lat-It 0.097 It-Sp 0.094 Lat-Sp 0.064 It-Fr 0.039 Lat-Fr 0.138 It-Ptg 0.038 Lat-Ptg 0.097 It-Ru 0.100 Lat-Ru 0.097

(4)

Lat-It Lat-Sp Lat-Fr Lat-Ptg Lat-Ru

Sp-Fr 0.098 Sp-Ptg 0.038 Sp-Ru 0.140

Fr-Ptg 0.060 Fr-Ru 0.146

311

Ptg-Ru 0.122

It-Sp Sp-Fr Fr-Ptg Ptg-Ru It-Fr Sp-Ptg Fr-Ru It-Ptg Sp-Ru It-Ru

The fact that several pairs of Romance varieties are closer to one another than either is to the Ursprache seems to suggest that not all the identities between the modern languages can be justified as inherited. Since here I only aim to provide a proof of principle of the feasibility of the approach proposed, we will focus on a single most blatant case, Italian and French: given that Latin had thirty-four of our nominal parameters relevantly set, and that Italian-Latin are , along the path from Latin to Italian three resettings must have introduced differences and three comparisons became irrelevant because of null values. French-Latin are , hence four differences and five null values were introduced. That is, less than 20% and 30% of the original system, respectively, was reset, an unsurprising result. Supposing independence of development, one might expect Italian and French to have inherited up to twenty-five identities from Latin (i.e. those retained by French, minus possibly few differences developed by chance in previously identically set parameters) and additionally to have acquired some new identities and differences, by chance almost equally distributed (cf. Italian and Greek above), if some previously null values became set in both languages. Instead, comparing Italian and French directly, out of forty-nine identities, twenty-five are, expectedly, inherited from Latin, and twenty-four are innovations, while there are only two (obviously new) differences: i.e. over 92% of the innovations are identical settings. Under Lightfoot’s sound reject of teleological explanations (genetic memory, cross-generational conspiracies . . . ), such a state of affairs appears to lead one either to accept an absolutely improbable amount of chance homoplasy and/or at least to conclude that Longobardi and Guardiano’s (2009) PCM experiment essentially captures areal contact effects rather than true genealogical information.

16.5 An explanatory attempt I want to claim here that this surprising pattern may be understood if we suppose that in addition to the two classical sources of convergence in historical linguistics, chance and contact (horizontal transmission), there is a third one: the very structure of UG parameters, with the implicational network just briefly exemplified, which

312

Giuseppe Longobardi

may provide a principled explanation for a number of innovations which only apparently will represent cases of homoplasy. Let me first notice, on the other side, that chance and contact are both really homoplastic (do create new similarities ex nihilo), but only chance raises issues of probability and intrinsically defies explanation. The objective will then be that of reducing most of the diachronic pattern above to the effect of plausible contact situations and UG conditions, leaving as a residue only an amount of cases compatible with chance expectations. First of all, consider that three out of the twenty-four common innovations are represented by uncertain states (i.e. still not clearly settable by us linguists) in Latin. Then we really can, and need to, focus on twenty-one of them. Now, especially within a reasonable theory of Inertia (Keenan 1994, 2000, 2009, Longobardi 2001a), only a subset of these ‘innovations’ can be regarded as primitive syntactic changes. In fact, nine of them (affecting p10, p11, p12, p14, p15, p24, p47, p50, p55) are shifts from a Latin null value (in the sense hinted at above) to Romance values not manifested extensionally by syntactic cues different from those already present in Latin; hence such cues were necessarily common to the primary corpora of all proto-Romance I-languages (in most cases they are represented by negative evidence, essentially triggering an unmarked parameter value): the  values at p10, p11, p12, p14, p15, p24, and p55 relate to the lack of particular morphosyntactic instantiations of categories like definiteness and countability which were not yet grammaticalized in Latin (cf.  at p7 and its implicational consequences); the effect of p47 is instantiated in both Latin and Romance by the same phenomenon, the prenominal appearance of structurally high adjectives (Crisma 1991, 1993, Gianollo 2005); only, in Latin this is predictable on the basis of the already prenominal occurrence of lower adjectives (e.g. ethnic ones, as in Latina lingua etc., cf. Gianollo 2005); p50 was syntactically undefined in Latin DPs, again because of the lack of visible articles, mostly because of the absence of grammaticalized definiteness, but a cue for it might lie in the rich specification of person morphology on verbs (Longobardi 2008), already salient in Latin; the particular setting of p55 throughout Romance amounts to having demonstrative determiners which do not cooccur in prenominal position with a separate definite article, a condition trivially met by Latin as well, of course, for lack of articles. All these cases instantiate a new category of historical grammatical concepts, at the intersection of I- and E-language, whose properties are defined by the implicational structure of UG parameters, and can be labelled ‘pre-existing conditions’ of the syntax of a proto-language, that is conditions that were extensionally present in Latin but did not set parameters there (i.e. their value ¼ 0), because of interactions with the values of some of the parameters which underwent primitive changes. Of the remaining innovations, which we may regard as primitive, six (p25, p28, p46, p53, p61, p63) exhibit variation across Romance: thus, no strong pre-existing conditions can have been inherited from Latin (indeed p25 and p53 were set in Latin

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

313

and were reset in Italian and French). In these cases, the common values of standard modern Italian and French, which are geographically contiguous, oppose themselves to those of Ibero-Romance (p53, p61, and p63, at least for Spanish), Daco-Romance (p25, p28, p53), or Walloon (at least p46, Bernstein 1993), hence they can be considered a product of contact in a Central Romance area or of specific prolonged Gallo-Italian unity in the evolution of Late Latin and proto-Romance. Furthermore, it is possible that the value  of p28 in Romance (except in Rumanian, which partly escaped the morphological collapse of Latin genitive and also exhibits further conditions on genitive case-marking: Grosu 1988, among others) may actually follow from the combination of complex morphosyntactic conditions (Longobardi 1996) and could eventually itself be downgraded by further research to a predictable, i.e. null value.3 Another parameter, p27, turns out to be actually variable in Romance at a slightly less coarse view, i.e. if we introduce Old French and some Central/Southern Italian dialects into the picture (Delfitto and Paradisi 2009).4 However, the identities of standard Italian and French in the  value here is less plausibly reducible to areal causes rather than chance, precisely owing to the robust presence of þ in diatopic and diachronic varieties of both domains. Notice, incidentally, that parameters 27 and 28 are null in Latin on the assumption that richly genitive-inflected languages, essentially those which must never resort to adpositional realization of such a case, can always express it in the two functional positions indeed called GenS and GenO (Longobardi 2001a, Gianollo 2005). The collapse of genitive morphology (also probably causing the resetting of p25) may have then automatically turned p27 and p28 on. Five other innovations (affecting p7, p8, p22, p23, p45) are really pan-Romance, at the same time cannot be reduced to Latin pre-existing conditions, and thus represent more dangerous candidates for chance homoplasy. However, some promising explanation seems available for at least a subset of them: the value þ at p7, namely the beginning of grammatical encoding of a definiteness feature, at least in textanaphoric usages, is a very general areal (pan-West European) phenomenon, and was possibly already shared by a common Late-Latin phase (Vincent 1997 among others) and perhaps by (perhaps significantly) coeval Gothic; þ at p8 is equally areal (again pan-West European with clear forerunners in Eastern Mediterranean varieties like Semitic and Greek) and likely to be an unmarked extension of the previous one (under semantic bleaching of the anaphoric definite marker into a full definite article). þ p45, allowing the crossing of the noun over at least some category of adjectives, is more complicated. It may be the result of an acquisition strategy requiring children to parse N-AP orders (unless otherwise marked, e.g. informationally or morphosyntactically) as APs base-generated in a prenominal position 3 P28 governs the licensing of a functional genitive position before attributive adjectives (GenS in Longobardi 2001). 4 P27 governs the licensing of a functional genitive position after attributive adjectives (GenO in Longobardi 2001).

314

Giuseppe Longobardi

eventually crossed over by the noun (Bernstein 1991, Crisma 1991, 1993, 1996) in the absence of robust contrary evidence (i.e. evidence that the AP occupies a phrase-final predicative-like position, certainly very freely available in both Romance and Latin: Gianollo 2005). The obvious question for a theory of acquisition is what might constitute robust counterevidence of this sort. A possible working hypothesis is that it could be sufficient for such evidence to include a certain number of Gen-N sequences signalling a relatively non-high position of the head noun. The latter were certainly abundant in Latin but absent in Romance, after all varieties became either  p27 or þ p44 (cf. Crisma and Gianollo 2006).5 If an approach along these lines is tenable, then the common resetting of p45 in Italian and French will be a predictable consequence of UG and principles of acquisition, depending essentially on a further pre-existing condition of Latin in interaction with the new changes occurred. In the end, þ p22, with its likely unmarked extension þ p23 (triggering the use of a singular indefinite article, according to Crisma 1997, 1999), and þ p27 remain perhaps the only safe candidates for chance homoplasy in the history of Italian and French DPs (as opposed to two really divergent changes). Now, the balance between accidentally homoplastic and divergent changes detected by PCM is significantly close to the one expected under the assumptions of constant and random evolution: QED. On the other hand, under this approach, the amount of Italian/French similarity which can be traced back to Classical Latin (i.e. with a depth of 2,000 years) rises to about thirty-five parameters over forty-nine, and to about forty, if we refer back to a possible Late Latin or common Gallo-ItaloRomance situation. The remaining commonalities (anyway no more than half a dozen, at worst) can be plausibly attributed to areal contact. Thus, the result was indeed achieved by relying not much on the traditional concept of horizontal transmission (contact, admixture . . . ), but crucially on the new notion of ‘pre-existing condition’ made available by a theory of UG and by hypotheses on the interaction of I-language (parameter values) and E-language (corresponding triggers) in acquisition. Such relation is complex in many respects, somewhat recalling that between genotype and phenotype in biology (a large number of parameter settings must be considered in order to determine the E-language actually generated and the values of other parameters), and, like the latter, influences the course of evolution.

5

This approach assumes that the persistent presence of a postnominal predicative adjective position throughout the whole history of homeland Greek (especially cf. Stavrou 1999, Guardiano 2003, Campos and Stavrou 2004 among other works) has also been signalled by other sorts of robust counterevidence (informational and/or morphosyntactic, e.g. through article reduplication, Alexiadou 2006 and references cited) in the primary corpora so as to avoid its reanalysis into a prenominal adjectival structure crossed over by the raising noun.

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

315

Thus, although we are far from a fully reliable and detailed account of the syntactic evolution under study and most of the proposals just made are rather speculative, they suffice to show that it cannot be simplistically argued that unexplained chance convergence (homoplasy) is at work in the derivation of Romance nominal structure from Latin, nor that the main body of modern Romance similarity detected by PCM must be attributed to horizontal transmission rather than to inheritance. In conclusion, a genuine historical problem (concerning amount and source of language similarity) arises in formal parametric terms—i.e. because a precise quantitative comparative method is now available (PCM)—and can be addressed without resorting to biolinguistically or probabilistically implausible assumptions, and in turn prompt new questions for a theory of UG and language acquisition.

16.6 History as (cognitive) science? The introduction of the new theoretical concept of ‘pre-existing condition’ of a proto-language, crucially based on the discovery of the strongly implicational structure of UG parameters, adds a powerful tool to grammatical historical explanations. This notion allows one to deal with certain long-term parallelisms with no appeal to hardly justifiable (Lightfoot 1979) ‘laws of history’ and to defend the value of Longobardi and Guardiano’s (2009) PCM as a tool of phylogenetic, rather than simply areal or just typological, investigation, even in the face of apparent counterevidence (the Romance convergence). The sketchy results of the present note point then to two important methodological considerations: (5)

a. new entities (syntactic parameters), beyond the level of immediate observation, postulated through the approach of modern cognitive science (essentially the ‘Galilean style’ of inquiry, to use Chomsky’s 1980 adoption of physicist Steven Weinberg’s terminology), can be used to model various aspects of actual language history. Their use may in principle prompt a shift of style in the study of cultural phylogenies (Boyd et al. 1997), akin to that produced by the introduction of genetic markers in biological phylogenies (cf. Cavalli Sforza et al. 1994, 18), and already permits those precise quantitative measures necessary to assimilate the study of history to that of advanced theoretical sciences; b. being able to address questions of type (2) above, PCM allows generative syntax to raise longer-distance (in time and space) historical issues, precisely those which seem the most appropriate for an explanatory study of history (Diamond 1997), for at least one reason: the effects of chance are inevitably more substantial on short-term events, a general statistical law, which should always suggest focusing on long-term phenomena (Braudel’s 1985 téléhistoires), in the pursuit of solid diachronic generalizations.

316

Giuseppe Longobardi

Appendix TABLE 16.1. Parameter values (adapted from Longobardi and Guardiano, 2009) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63)

± gramm. person ± gramm. number +1 ± gramm. gender +2 ± variable person on D +1 ± feature spread to N +2 ± numb. on N (BNs) +5 ± gramm. partial def ± gramm. def +7 ± free null partitive Q +6 ± gramm. dist. art. –5 or –6 or +7 ± gramm. top. art. –10 ± def checking N +7 ± def spread to N +12 ± def on attrib. –12 ± def on relatives +7 ± D-controlled infl. on N +5 ± gramm. cardinal nouns ± gramm. cardinal adjectives +17 ± plural spread from cardinals +5, –17 or +18 ± gramm. mass-to-count ± gramm. boundedness ± gramm. partial count –5 or –6 or +7, –21 ± gramm. count +22 ± count checking N +21 or +22 ± prepositional Gen ± free inflected Gen –25 ± GenO +25 or –26 ± GenS +25 or –26 ± postpositional Gen +27 or +28 ± Gen over DemP ± poss checking N ± structured APs ± feature spread to structured APs +32 ± feature spread to pred. APs ± numb. on A +6, +33 or +34 ± D-controlled infl. on A +33 ± DP over relatives ± free APs in Mod +32 ± APs in Mod –38 ± overt Mod° –32 or +38 or +39 ± adjectival Gen ± N-raising with pied-piping ± N over ext.arg. –42 ± N over GenO –26 or +27, –30 ,+43 ± N over As +32, (–26 or –27, +43) or +44 ± N over M2 As +45 ± N over M1 As +46 ± N over high As +47 ± N over cardinals +42 or +48 ± strong D (person) +1, +8 or +28 ± NP over D ± strong deixis ± strong anaphoricity +52 ± gramm. possessives –28, +31 ± D checking Dem –5 or –6 or +7, +52 ± D-checking poss –5 or –6 or +8, +50 or –28, +54 ± adjectival poss. +35 or +34 or +33, +54 ± feature spread to postpos. Gen +29, +57 ± enclitic possessives +54 ± Consisten. Princ. +51 or (–44 or … or –47, +A-Compl) ± null-N-licensing art –5 or–6 or –12, +50 or +51 ± obl. def. inh. +7, –22, (–25, +26) or +27,+42 or +45 or –50 ± gramm. geogr. art. –5 or–6 or +7, –22 or –23 or +45

It + + + – + + + + – – – – 0 – – – – 0 + – – + + + 0 0 – – + + + + – + + 0 – – – + 0 + + – 0 0 + – + + + + – + 0 – + – 0 +

Sp + + + + + + + + – – – – 0 – – – – 0 + – – + + – + 0 – – 0 – – + + + + – + + 0 – – – + 0 + + – 0 0 + – + – + + + + 0 – + + 0 –

Fr + + + – + – + + 0 – – – 0 – – – – 0 + – – + + – + 0 – – 0 – – + + + 0 – + + 0 – – – + 0 + + – 0 0 + – + –+ + + + + 0 – + – 0 +

Ptg + + + – + + + + – – – – 0 – – – – 0 + – – + + – + 0 – – 0 – – + + + + – + + 0 – – – + 0 + + – 0 0 + – + + + + ? + 0 – + + 0 –

Ru + mm + + – + + + + – – – + – 0 – – – 0 + – – + + – – – – + – – – + + + + – + – – 0 – – + 0 + + – 0 0 + – + – + + – + 0 – + 0 0 +

Lat + + + ? + + – 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – 0 + – – 0 0 0 – + 0 0 0 – – + + + + – ? + 0 – – – + – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – + – – 0 0 + 0 – ? 0 0 0

?

EM uEM P uP uP P P

X Xu P CR X P

?

P uP uP

P

CR P

? CR CR

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

317

Legenda for the leftmost column of Table 16.1: The implications giving rise to 0 are indicated next to the name of the implied parameter in the first column of Table 16.1, in the form of (conjunctions or disjunctions of) valued implying parameters, identified by their progressive number. E.g. ‘ þ 1, þ 8 or þ 28’ in the label of parameter 50 means that p50 can only be valued when p1 is set to þ and either p8 or p28 are set to þ ; otherwise p50 will receive a 0. Legenda for the rightmost column of Table 16.1: EM ¼ (West)European/Mediterranean areal feature P ¼ pre-existing condition of Latin syntax or predictable values as a consequence of other changes u ¼ possibly unmarked value, given the values of other parameters CR ¼ Central Romance, common feature of Gallo- and Italo-Romance possibly due to close areal contact or continued sub-unity X ¼ locus of possible chance homoplasy Languages: Italian (It), French (Fr), Spanish (Sp), Portuguese (Ptg), Rumanian (Ru), Latin (Lat) The yellow-shaded values of the French column are the potential loci of Gallo-Italian convergence.

TABLE 16.2. Distance matrix (from Longobardi and Guardiano 2009) It It

Sal

Sp

Fr

Ptg

Rum

Lat

CIG

NTG

Gri

Grk

Got

OE

E

D

Nor

Big

SC

Rus

Ir

Wel

Heb

Ar

Wo

Hu

Fin

Hi

Bas

49; 3

48; 5

49; 2

50; 2

45; 5

28; 3

36; 8

38; 9

45; 5

40; 10

33; 8

38; 9

38; 6

40; 7

37; 7

38; 8

28; 8

29; 8

32; 8

28; 9

34; 10

31; 14

21; 12

32; 12

24; 11

26; 8

18; 17

It

44; 8

45; 5

46; 5

42; 7

27; 4

34; 10

36; 11

44; 6

38; 11

31; 10

35; 11

35; 8

38; 8

35; 8

36; 9

27; 8

28; 8

32; 9

28; 10

32; 13

29; 17

22; 11

30; 13

23; 11

26; 8

18; 17

Sal

46; 5

50; 2

43; 7

29; 2

37; 7

38; 9

40; 10

40; 10

34; 7

37; 10

36; 8

38; 9

35; 9

38; 8

26; 10

27; 10

33; 7

29; 8

32; 12

32; 13

20; 13

31; 13

22; 13

24; 10

19; 16

Sp

47; 3

41; 7

25; 4

32; 10

34; 11

41; 7

36; 12

30; 9

35; 10

36; 7

37; 8

34; 8

34; 10

25; 9

26; 9

30; 8

27; 9

30; 12

27; 16

22; 11

29; 13

22; 11

23; 9

17; 18

Fr

43; 6

28; 3

35; 8

37; 9

42; 7

38; 11

33; 8

38; 9

38; 6

40; 7

37; 7

38; 7

28; 8

29; 8

32; 7

28; 8

33; 10

30; 14

21; 11

33; 11

24; 11

26; 8

19; 15

Ptg

28; 3

35; 7

38; 8

45; 6

39; 10

35; 6

39; 9

35; 9

40; 8

39; 8

39; 8

29; 9

30; 9

31; 10

27; 11

33; 10

29; 14

20; 13

35; 11

29; 9

29; 7

21; 15

Rum

31; 2

29; 4

25; 7

28; 5

29; 4

26; 7

21; 7

24; 7

24; 6

24; 4

26; 6

27; 6

30; 6

16; 7

20; 8

21; 8

12; 10

20; 10

23; 9

25; 5

13; 9

Lat

43; 2

35; 10

40; 5

34; 5

31; 11

26; 12

29; 12

29; 10

31; 8

24; 9

25; 9

26; 9

22; 10

29; 12

31; 11

15; 16

26; 13

21; 12

23; 8

15; 15

CIG

41; 8

46; 3

40; 4

37; 10

27; 14

34; 11

30; 11

34; 8

31; 6

32; 6

31; 6

27; 10

31; 13

32; 13

21; 13

30; 13

24; 12

26; 8

16; 17

NTG

45; 6

34; 9

40; 9

34; 10

41; 8

35; 10

35; 10

31; 7

32; 7

36; 6

31; 8

33; 12

28; 17

25; 10

35; 11

29; 9

28; 8

21; 15

Gri

39; 5

38; 12

30; 15

36; 13

32; 13

36; 9

31; 8

32; 8

31; 9

26; 11

32; 12

34; 11

21; 15

32; 13

25; 13

26; 10

19; 17

Grk

39; 5

28; 10

36; 6

31; 7

29; 8

30; 7

31; 7

28; 9

25; 9

28; 10

28; 11

19; 12

30; 11

25; 11

27; 7

15; 12

Got

37; 8

44; 5

37; 8

35; 9

34; 6

36; 5

33; 8

30; 9

32; 12

28; 16

26; 9

35; 10

30; 9

29; 6

21;12

OE

40; 5

38; 5

31; 10

23; 11

24; 11

26; 9

26; 9

30; 10

24; 16

18; 14

32; 10

21; 13

23; 8

19; 13

E

41; 5

33; 11

29; 9

30; 9

33; 7

31; 6

30; 12

25; 17

23; 10

35; 10

27; 11

28; 7

18; 15

D

32; 11

25; 10

26; 10

28; 8

25; 8

28; 12

25; 15

17; 13

32; 10

25; 11

27; 7

18; 14

Nor

31; 4

31; 4

27; 10

23; 10

33; 8

27; 13

17; 15

28; 13

21; 12

24; 7

16; 16

Blg

40; 1

25; 7

23; 7

26; 9

20; 14

19; 8

25; 12

29; 10

29; 5

15; 13

SC

25; 7

22; 8

25; 10

22; 13

19; 8

25; 13

30; 10

30; 5

15; 13

Rus

39; 1

29; 10

36; 12

20; 10

27; 9

23; 8

19; 9

11; 15

Ir

27; 10

24; 12

18; 11

24; 10

19; 10

15; 10

9; 16

Wel

40; 7

16; 16

30; 10

25; 9

19; 11

17; 16

Heb

14; 19

26; 14

22; 12

16; 15

15; 19

Ar

22; 10

17; 9

16; 8

15; 13

Wo

26; 9

20; 12

Hu

25; 9

19; 9

Fin

Sal

0,0577

Sp

0,0943 0,1538

Fr

0,0392 0,1000 0,0980

Ptg

0,0385 0,0980 0,0385 0,0600

Rum

0,1000 0,1420 0,1400 0,1458 0,1224

Lat

0,0968 0,1290 0,0645 0,1379 0,0968 0,0968

CIG

0,1818 0,2273 0,1591 0,2381 0,1860 0,1667 0,0606

NTG

0,1915 0,2340 0,1915 0,2444 0,1957 0,1739 0,1212 0,0444

Gri

0,1000 0,1200 0,2000 0,1458 0,1429 0,1176 0,2188 0,2222 0,1633

Grk

0,2000 0,2245 0,2000 0,2500 0,2245 0,2041 0,1515 0,1111 0,0612 0,1176

Got

0,1951 0,2439 0,1707 0,2308 0,1951 0,1463 0,1212 0,1282 0,0909 0,2093 0,1136

OE

0,1951 0,2391 0,2128 0,2222 0,1915 0,1875 0,2121 0,2619 0,2128 0,1837 0,2400 0,1136

E

0,1364 0,1860 0,1818 0,1628 0,1364 0,2045 0,2500 0,3158 0,3415 0,2273 0,3333 0,2632 0,1778

D

0,1489 0,1739 0,1915 0,1778 0,1489 0,1667 0,2258 0,2927 0,2444 0,1633 0,2653 0,1429 0,1020 0,1111

Nor

0,1591 0,1860 0,2045 0,1905 0,1591 0,1702 0,2000 0,2564 0,2683 0,2222 0,2889 0,1842 0,1778 0,1163 0,1087

BIg

0,1739 0,2000 0,1739 0,2273 0,1556 0,1702 0,1429 0,2051 0,1905 0,2222 0,2000 0,2162 0,2045 0,2439 0,2500 0,2558

SC

0,2222 0,2286 0,2778 0,2647 0,2222 0,2368 0,1875 0,2727 0,1622 0,1842 0,2051 0,1892 0,1500 0,3235 0,2368 0,2857 0,1143

Rus

0,2162 0,2222 0,2703 0,2571 0,2162 0,2308 0,1818 0,2647 0,1579 0,1795 0,2000 0,1842 0,1220 0,3143 0,2308 0,2778 0,1143 0,0244

Ir

0,2000 0,2195 0,1750 0,2105 0,1795 0,2439 0,2308 0,2571 0,2250 0,1429 0,2250 0,2432 0,1951 0,2571 0,1750 0,2222

,2703

0,2188 02188

Wel

0,2432 0,2632 0,2162 0,2500 0,2222 0,2895 0,3043 0,3125 0,2703 0,2051 0,2973 0,2647 0,2308 0,2571 0,1622 0,2424 0,3030 0,2333 0,2667 0,0250

Heb

0,2273 0,2889 0,2727 0,2857 0,2326 0,2326 0,2857 0,2927 0,2955 0,2667 0,2727 0,2632 0,2727 0,2500 0,2857 0,3000 0,1951 0,2571 0,2857 0,2564 0,2703

Ar

0,3111 0,3696 0,2889 0,3721 0,3182 0,3256 0,2759 0,2619 0,2889 0,3778 0,2444 0,2821 0,3636 0,4000 0,4048 0,3750 0,3250 0,4118 0,3714 0,3158 0,3333 0,1489

Wo

0,3636 0,3333 0,3939 0,3333 0,3438 0,3939 0,4545 0,5161 0,3842 0,2857 0,4167 0,3871 0,2571 0,4375 0,3030 0,4333 0,4688 0,2963 0,2963 0,3333 0,3793 0,5000 0,5758

Hu

0,2727 0,3023 0,2955 0,3095 0,2500 0,2391 0,3333 0,3333 0,3023 0,2391 0,2889 0,2683 0,2222 0,2381 0,2222 0,2381 0,3171 0,3243 0,3421 0,2500 0,2941 0,2500 0,3500 0,3125

Fin

0,3143 0,3235 0,3714 0,3333 0,3143 0,2368 0,2813 0,3636 0,3333 0,2368 0,3421 0,3056 0,2308 0,3824 0,2895 0,3056 0,3636 0,2564 0,2500 0,2581 0,3448 0,2617 0,3529 0,3462 0,1622

31; 6

Hi

0,2353 0,2353 0,2941 0,2813 0,2353 0,1944 0,1667 0,2581 0,2353 0,2222 0,2778 0,2059 0,1714 0,2581 0,2000 0,2059 0,2258 0,1471 0,1429 0,3214 0,4000 0,3667 0,4839 0,3333 0,2571 0,2647

Bas

0,4857 0,4857 0,4571 0,5143 0,4412 0,4167 0,4091 0,5000 0,5152 0,4167 0,4722 0,4444 0,3636 0,4063 0,4545 0,4375 0,5000 0,4643 0,4643 0,5769 0,6400 0,4848 0,5588 0,4643 0,3750 0,3214 0,3077 It

Sal

Sp

Fr

Ptg

Rum

Lat

CIG

NTG

Gri

Grk

Got

OE

E

D

Nor

Big

SC

Rus

Ir

Wel

Heb

Ar

We

Hu

Fin

18; 8

Hi

Hi Bas

Bas

Convergence in parametric phylogenies

319

A representation of the implicational structure of Table 16.1 above (from Rigon 2009) P25

P20

–

–

+

–

or

–

–

–

+

or

or

P36

P29

+

+

–

or

P21

+

or

P35

and

–

P22

or

+

+

and

P57

or

and

–

P24

P62 –

+

–

P7

+

–

+

P5

P12

P15

–

–

P13 P14

+

–

+

–

+

P50

or

+

P23 P56 +

+

+ –

or

or and

or and

+

–

P47

–

–

–

+

P63

+

OR

–

and

P45

P52

P51

–

+

–

–

P11

and P53

–

and

– –

P61

+

P19 +

+

–

P55 –

+

+

P54

+

–

+ –

–

+A–Comp

and

+

or

or

P49

P60

+

+

–

P44

or

P48

–

or

+

P46

or

and

P10

+

+

P16

or

–

or

–

+

–

+

and and

–

+

+

+

or

+

–

+

–

P3

–

–

P30 P43

–

P18

P6

+

P9

+

–

and

P58

+

–

+

and

–

–

+

–

–

+

–

–

P2

P8

+

and

–

+

P17

–

+

P28

–

+

+

P40 –

–

+

P39

P34

P59 –

P42

+ P33

+

–

P4

and

P38

P41 –

P1 +

+

–

+

–

P27

P32

P37

–

P26

+

or

P31 +

–

+

–

or

17 Macroparameters and minimalism A programme for comparative research IAN ROBERTS

17.1 Introduction This chapter is somewhat programmatic, and sketches a way of reconceiving the notion of parameter of Universal Grammar along novel lines, intended to meet recent criticisms from Newmeyer (2004, 2005) and Boeckx (2009), and to provide a fully workable research programme for the formal study of cross-linguistic variation in syntax (with obvious implications for historical language change, ontogeny, and phylogeny). The basic idea is the following: Baker’s (1996, 2008a,b) notion of macroparameter can be reconciled with the idea that parameters are specified as the formal features of functional categories by construing macroparameters as aggregates of microparameters. Apparent macroparametric variation appears when a group of functional heads are specified for the same properties: for example, if all heads implicated in determining word-order variation have the same word-order related property, the system is harmonically head-initial or head-final. This aggregate behaviour is determined, not by UG, but by a conservative learning strategy (input generalization), hence the distinction between micro- and macroparameters is not part of NS/UG, but is an emergent property of the interaction between the learner, the primary linguistic data, and UG. In these terms, we can set up networks of parameters. (1) illustrates how this might work for word order, assuming for concreteness that the default linearization option is head initial, with head-final order derived by marking the relevant heads in some way (e.g. for triggering movement of their complements as in Kayne 1994):

Macroparameters and minimalism

(1)

321

Is the head-final feature present on all heads?

Y: head-final (a)

N: present on no heads?

Y: head-initial(b)

N: present on [+V] categories?

Y:head-final in N: present the clause only(c) on …. Languages of type (a) are Japanese, Korean, Dravidian, etc.: the harmonically, rigidly head-final systems. Type (b) includes the rigidly, harmonically head-initial Celtic and Romance languages. Type (c) features German and Dutch, to a close approximation, since they show head-final TP, vP, and VP but are (almost) headinitial in all other categories. At the ‘deepest right branch’ (this notion is just a notational choice, with no theoretical significance), the parameter breaks down into a series of increasingly specific microparameters. Below I will sketch several parametric hierarchies of this kind. True macroparameters sit at the top of the network, as here all relevant parametrized heads behave as one. As we move successively down, systems become more marked, parameters become more ‘micro’, behaving in a non-uniform, differentiated fashion which is inherently more complex than the systems higher in the tree (we can suppose that the options move from subsets of the set of formal features F to singleton features of heads f2F, to increasingly context-sensitive environments, ultimately perhaps to single lexical items), and the options have a longer description (the conjunction of all the ‘dominating nodes’ in the hierarchy). For language acquisition, each parameter hierarchy defines a learning path, much in the sense of Dresher (1999), with the higher options inherently preferred by the acquirer. More generally, we can think of the hierarchies as an epigenetic landscape (Waddington 1977), defined by incrementally more computationally complex options as the learner ‘moves down the tree’. The acquisition device searches the space by looking for the ‘easiest’ solution at each stage, where a solution is defined as a parameter-setting compatible with available primary linguistic data. The device moves from a relatively easy to the next-hardest stage only when forced to by primary linguistic data (PLD) incompatible with the current setting. On the other hand, if language change is driven by acquisition, and in particular by choices made by acquirers on the basis of ambiguous PLD that differ from the choices made by previous generations (Lightfoot 1979), then the inference is that in

322

Ian Roberts

diachrony systems will, all other things being equal, ‘move up’ the hierarchy. However, as the sketch in (1) should make clear, systems near to the top of a hierarchy are very different from one another (owing to the concerted action of aggregates of microparameters), and so, the higher the position in the hierarchy, the harder it is for systems to change. At the lower, microparametric levels, on the other hand, it is relatively easy for systems to change. A further question that arises, in the spirit of approaching UG ‘from below’ (see Chomsky 2005, 2007), is the extent to which parametric variation is specified by UG. Since the P&P model appears to presuppose a complex and richly structured UG, this is a problem (see Newmeyer 2005: 83). The recent resurgence of interest in the evolution of language points the same way: how would the Darwinian forces of mutation and selection give rise to a richly parametrized UG? Classical GB-style P&P theory, then, seems to pose a problem for both the ontogeny and the phylogeny of language. In this connection, Berwick and Chomsky (2011) argue that much of the observable variation in grammatical systems reflects the nature of what they refer to as ‘the externalization process’, i.e. phonological/morphological interface (PF), rather than the narrow syntax (NS) itself. They suggest that true, NS-internal, syntactic variation may be negligible or non-existent. On the basis of the parameter hierarchies to be investigated below, I conclude that there are just two axes of variation: set-theoretic relations among formal features (person, number, gender, and case features) and distribution of the feature which triggers syntactic movement (whose formal nature we will say more about below). Of these, only the latter is UG-internal: the former follows from set theory combined with the simple and obvious idea that languages select for the set of formal features they deploy in derivations (just as they select for phonological distinctive features). I suggest a conceptual motivation for the UG-internal nature of the movement trigger below. Hence, we get a partial reconstruction of the original conception of syntactic parameter, in the sense that we expect to find large-scale typological variation as the reflex of a single (aggregate) property of (a set of) functional categories. Moreover, as already observed, the parameter hierarchies make clear predictions about both language acquisition and change. However, the ontological status of the parameters, and of the hierarchies, is very different from either the 1980s or the 1990s conception: parametric variation is not specified in UG itself. Instead, it arises from underspecified aspects of UG, and is structured by third-factor properties arising largely from the need for efficient learning. Because of this, we are not led to propose an over-elaborate innate endowment; in keeping with Chomsky’s recent proposals, the innate UG contains rather little more than the single combinatorial operation Merge and a schema for syntactic categories and features.

Macroparameters and minimalism

323

17.2 Parameter hierarchies In principle, parametric hierarchies may hold either of NS or of PF parameters. Fully investigating the nature of clearly PF parameters (concerning syllable structure, phoneme inventories, patterns of assimilation, metrical properties, etc.) would take us too far afield, and so I will concentrate on parameters whose effects are morphosyntactic here. For now I put aside the Berwick–Chomsky conjecture mentioned above, and return to the question of whether these are truly NS parameters after introducing and discussing the hierarchies. In the previous section I illustrated word order/linearization as one macroparameter, whereby the unordered structures created by merge in NS are linearized by Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom, head-final categories being marked with the movement-triggering diacritic. Looking at this hierarchy from a diachronic perspective, and taking seriously the idea that systems will, all other things being equal, tend to ‘move up’ the hierarchy, we can observe two things. First, change from type (c) (head-final in the clause only) to type (b) (head-initial) is readily observed in several major branches of Indo-European (North Germanic, Celtic, Romance, Greek) and in Western Finno-Ugric. English of course shows this change in its recorded history, as first observed in the generative literature by van Kemenade (1987). Second, we expect change from type (b) (head-initial) to type (a) (head-final) to be rarer, but a number of interesting cases are documented: in Niger-Congo (Nikitina 2008), in Ethiopian Semitic (Biberauer, Newton, and Sheehan 2009a,b) and in Chinese (Huang 2007). A further relevant point is that the possible mechanisms and directions of change may in all cases be subject to UG-derived constraints. In the area of word-order/ linearization a particularly interesting one may be the ways in which the Final-overFinal Constraint (FOFC) constrains possible ‘intermediate’ systems in change from general head-initial to general head-final order, or vice versa. FOFC rules out a headinitial category as the complement of a head-final category (in the same extended projection; see Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts 2010 and Biberauer and Sheehan 2012 for slightly different versions of the constraint): (2)

*[ZP [XP X YP] Z]

As pointed out in the above references, this implies the following two diachronic paths: (3)

a. [[[O V] I] C] ! [C [[O V] I]]![C [ I [ O V]]]![C [I [V O]]]. b. [C [ I [ V O]]] ! [C [ I [ O V]]]![C [ [ O V] I]]![[[ O V] I] C].

Any other path will violate FOFC at some diachronic stage. See in particular Biberauer, Newton, and Sheehan (2009a,b), Biberauer, Sheehan, and Newton (2010) for discussion.

324

Ian Roberts

In the rest of this section, I will briefly outline three further possible parameter hierarchies and briefly consider their possible diachronic consequences. 17.2.1 Null arguments Following Holmberg (2010) and Roberts (2010a,b), I take null arguments to arise through pronoun deletion, which can take place under the generalized recoverability condition that the formal features of the goal be (properly) included in the features of the probe (we refer to such goals as ‘defective’). The relevant parameter hierarchy is then as follows (here ‘fully specified’ means recoverably specified, permitting recoverability):

(4) Are φ -features obligatory on all probes? r u No yes Radical pro-drop (a) r Yes

Are φ-features fully specified on all probes? u No

Pronominal arguments (b)

Are φ-features fully specified on some probes? ru No: Yes

Non-null-subject (c) Are the φ-features of {T, v,..}fully specified Italian, etc. This parameter falls fairly cleanly into a hierarchy. Type (a) languages include Japanese, Chinese, and many other East Asian languages, which lack agreementmarking altogether and yet permit any pronoun to be dropped under appropriate discourse conditions. Saito (2007) argues that the absence of f-features means that no argument can be an active probe (since, following Chomsky 2001b, active probes by definition have unvalued f-features), and hence arguments may freely fail to appear in overt syntax, being inserted only in LF. This kind of system represents the maximum of f-impoverishment. Type (b) languages include a number of Amerindian languages, notably Navajo, analysed by Jelinek (1984): these languages also allow all pronominal arguments to drop, but differ from the East Asian type in showing fully specified subject- and object-agreement, as well as possessor agreement in nominals, and free word order.

Macroparameters and minimalism

325

Hence these represent the maximal case of morphological ‘richness’ allowing recoverable deletion of pronouns. Type (c) is represented by English and the North (and perhaps West) Germanic languages (with the possible exception of Icelandic), languages which do not allow null pronominals at all. As indicated, the hierarchy breaks down into microparameters at this point (see Holmberg and Roberts 2010 for details), starting with those languages which, like Italian, allow null pronominal subjects only. Looking at this hierarchy from a diachronic perspective, we can readily observe that the change from null-subject to non-null-subject is well-attested. Perhaps the best-known case study is French (see Adams 1987a,b, Roberts 1993, Vance 1988, 1997), but it is very likely that the Germanic languages, either together or separately, must have moved from a null-subject system to a non-null-subject system at some stage in their prehistory, given the general prevalence of null subjects in other branches of Indo-European. Concerning the higher parts of the hierarchy, one question that can be asked is whether colloquial French is moving to a pronominal argument system in which all arguments are obligatorily realized as clitics with fully nominal ‘doubles’ realized in adjunct positions, along the general lines of pronominal-argument languages as analysed by Jelinek. Superficially, examples like (3) suggest that this is the case: (5)

(Moi), (le livre), je le lui Me, the book, I it to-him ‘I have given the book to John.’

ai have

donné, given,

(à Jean). to John.

This kind of sentence is natural in contemporary spoken French. Here all the bracketed constituents are optional as long as all the arguments are realized as clitics. Among others, Harris (1978) suggests that French is moving in the direction of having a very rich system of preverbal agreement markers (the clitics) with optional doubling. However, the only obligatory clitic is the subject je, and if the other clitics are not present the relevant putative ‘double’ must occupy the appropriate argument position, with very little freedom of word order. French may thus show a tendency in the direction of a pronominal agreement system, but the only argument for which this is clearly the case is the subject. Nonetheless, these varieties of French give us a picture of how a general pronominal-argument system might develop. Can a system move from the pronominal-argument option to radical pro-drop? This would have to involve the loss of all agreement morphology. Of course, loss of agreement-marking is a readily attested kind of change, very evident in the history of English as is well-known. But here what is required is the complete loss of valuation of f-features of all arguments. There is some suggestive evidence from Brazilian Portuguese that the loss of clitics can bring about argument drop (in particular the loss of direct-object and impersonal clitics seem to have brought about a number of what, from the general Romance perspective, are highly unusual cases of null

326

Ian Roberts

subjects and objects respectively; see in particular Duarte 1995 and the papers in Kato and Negrão 2000). We can thus see ways in which languages may, over time, ‘move up’ the null-argument hierarchy. 17.2.2 Word structure This replicates the oldest typology proposed (Schlegel 1817, Schleicher 1861–2, Sapir 1921). The conjecture is that nineteenth century typology observed these highly salient properties of word structure and naturally attributed them to morphology, when in fact they are determined by syntax, more precisely by the syntax of incorporation. In Roberts (2010c) I put forward a general account of incorporation in terms of the framework of Chomsky (2001), in which the central idea, again, is that of a defective goal (i.e. a category whose formal features are properly included in those of its probe). If the defective goal is a minimal category in bare-phrasestructure terms, then incorporation results from the feature-copying involved in the agree/match relation. In these terms, polysynthetic languages allow productive incorporation of lexical roots, notably N-to-V incorporation. Fully analytic languages such as Chinese disallow head movement even at the lowest structural level (V-to-v and N-to-n; Huang 2007). Fusional languages relativize head-movement to categories: familiar V-movement parameters fall under this heading (cf. the link between V-to-T movement and inflection V discussed by Vikner 1997, Biberauer and Roberts 2010 and others). The hierarchy is as follows:1 (6) Do all probes trigger head-movement?

Y: polysynthesis(a) Do some probes trigger head-movement? N: analytic(b)

Y: does {C, T …}(c) ?

Type (a) is instantiated by a number of Amerindian polysynthetic languages, notably Mohawk, as analysed in detail by Baker (1996). Type (b) is Chinese, and type (c) is instantiated by the Romance and Celtic languages for V-movement to T, and the non-English Germanic languages for V-movement to (root) C. Looking at this hierarchy from a diachronic perspective, we can observe that the well-known tendency across Indo-European for inflection and concomitant headmovement to be lost (most clearly observed in the history of English and the North Germanic languages, see again Vikner 1997 and the references given there) shows 1 Agglutinative systems, on the other hand, may fall outside this hierarchy, if it is correct that they result from the combination of head-final order, involving complement-to-specifier movement with the head of the target phonologically realised (Julien 2002).

Macroparameters and minimalism

327

how systems ‘move up’ to approximate to the analytic type. Of course, at the very top, it is hard to see how a system might change from analytic to polysynthetic. Perhaps in certain cases the distances between the highest values are simply too great for any normal, acquisition-driven, process of change to traverse. 17.2.3 Alignment The alignment of case and agreement marking with grammatical functions such as subjects and objects is highly variable across languages, and most languages have some means of altering their unmarked alignment (arguably the commonest being the passive, although causatives, applicatives and ‘dative-shift’ also do this, while psychological predicates often show marked alignment and, internal to nominals, clausal patterns are only partially replicated). The basic patterns are captured in Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) probe-goal-agree system. There Chomsky proposes that if a probe bears the movement diacritic, it causes the goal to move to its specifier. This accounts for subject-raising to (Spec,TP) and basic cases of object shift. Collins (2005) argues convincingly that passives are derived by ‘smuggling’ a participial phrase over the first-merged external argument in (Spec,vP), thereby making the object closer to T and facilitating object movement to the subject position (with the subject staying in its first-merged position and being realised as a ‘by-phrase’). Roberts (forthcoming) generalizes Collins’ account of passives and argues for the existence of a class of ‘indirect’ derivations which are formally characterized by the simple difference that the probe triggers movement of a category distinct from the goal. In ‘direct’ derivations, on the other hand, the probe triggers movement of its goal. More precisely, consider (8): (8)

H1 [ H2 [H3P DP1 H3 [YP Y DP2]]]

H2 is a phase head, endowed with movement-triggering (EPP/EF) and probing features, the latter may be ‘inherited’ by the non-phase head H3 (Chomsky 2008). H1 is external to the phase headed by H2, but may have probing features. Both DPs have unvalued features and so can be goals and can move. YP is a lexical predicative category and as such may move but is not a possible goal for any of H1–3, neither is it a probe, being lexical. In this situation there are just two possibilities for a wellformed derivation in which locality conditions are met and probing features valued: (i) H2 attracts DP1, which is probed by H1 (and possibly further attracted), while H3 inherits H2’s probing features and probes DP2. This is a direct derivation. (ii) H2 attracts YP and probes DP1, which does not move; H1 probes (and possibly attracts) DP2; H3 is inert. This is an indirect derivation. The clausal structure assumed in relation to (8) is slightly more complex than the standard one, in that the head of the ‘internal phase’ is not v but Voice:

328 (9)

Ian Roberts T¼H1 [ Voice¼H2 [vP DP1¼EA v þ H3 [VP V DP þ IA2]]]

In an active derivation, v inherits probing features from Voice and thereby probes the IA, but Voice retains the movement-triggering feature and attracts the EA to its specifier; the EA is then further attracted to T. In a passive derivation, Voice withholds its f-features from v and thereby licenses the EA; its movement-triggering feature then causes VP to move. In this way, the IA is placed in position where it can and must be probed by T. This distinction between direct and indirect derivations underlies the activepassive derivation, two main types of causative constructions found cross-linguistically, ‘dative-shift’ in languages like English, and variation in the realization of arguments of psychological predicates both within and across languages. Most importantly for present purposes, it also underlies the ergative-accusative alternation. The structure of an ergative clause is as in (10) (which is in fact the same as (9)): (10)

T/Aux [VoiceP Voice [vP EA v [VP V IA]]]

Where T takes the direct option, it licenses and raises the EA, as is standard. Where it takes the indirect option, VP raises to (Spec,VoiceP) over the subject in (Spec,vP) and the object, if present, is licensed by T: ergative alignment results, with the external argument being licensed by Voice. If the object is not present, T can license the subject (if Voice nonetheless has a probing feature, this may give rise to a tripartite system). Hence the ergative pattern (intransitive subject patterns with transitive object) can be derived. In a split-ergative system, T has the relevant set of tense/aspect properties, and selects the relevant type of VoiceP complement. Splitergative patterns of the kind common in Indo-Iranian languages can be derived by distinguishing perfective and imperfective T, with just the former selecting Voice which triggers the indirect derivation and hence ergative alignment. The alignment hierarchy, to a first approximation, is as follows: (11)

Does Voice trigger a direct derivation? r

u

Y: accusative(a)

N: does Voice trigger an indirect derivation? ru

Y: does Voice probe the object? r Y: tripartite (c)

N: Voice indirect just with unaccusatives? r Y: active (b)

u N: ergative (d)

u N: {[αAsp],[βPers]} T triggers indirect derivation?

Macroparameters and minimalism

329

Type (a) languages show the familiar accusative alignment, covertly in English, overtly in Latin, Russian, Japanese, etc. Type (b) languages show ergative alignment only with the single argument of an unaccusative verb, e.g. Basque. Type (c) languages distinguish transitive subjects, intransitive subjects, and direct objects, hence must have a probe distinct from T for one of the last two, i.e. Voice; this is what is found in Hindi and Marathi. Type (d) languages show the straightforward ergative alignment, e.g. Lezgian, Chuckchi, numerous Australian languages. Again, the split-ergative pattern gives rise to a range of microparametric variation determined by the exact features of T. From a diachronic perspective, the hierarchy in (11) predicts a preference for accusative systems generally, and indeed a preference for systems to shift from ergative to accusative alignment. This is a further prediction which requires close empirical evaluation and is supported by Nichols’ (1994) observation that ergativity appears to be a recessive phenomenon. One very interesting and well-known diachronic observation, which in fact appears to go against the immediate prediction of the hierarchy in (11), is that ergative alignment tends to originate from passive constructions: it has been proposed that many Polynesian languages have undergone a passive-to-ergative change (Hohepa 1969, Hale 1970), and that split-ergativity in Indo-Iranian is derived from an earlier passive construction (Butt and Deo 2005, Garrett 1990, Harris and Campbell 1995). We can in fact understand this in terms of two things: why it is that such a ‘low’ category moves in indirect derivations, and this in interaction with FOFC. On the first point, recall that in indirect derivations, the goal does not move by definition. The complement of the goal cannot move by anti-locality (Abels 2003; see Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts 2010 for a refinement), hence the closest category available for movement is the complement of the complement. This is why VP moves in indirect derivations triggered by Voice. However, here an important refinement becomes relevant. Consider the structure that results from VP-fronting in an indirect derivation: (12)

T [VoiceP [VP V IA] Voice [vP EA v (VP)]]

All other things being equal, the boldfaced part of (12) violates FOFC (see (2)). Now, in a head-final language, all things are not equal as the order of IA and V is inverted and we no longer have a FOFC violation here. Assuming general ‘roll-up’ of all complements, we have a structure like (13) instead: (13)

[VoiceP [vP EA [VP IA V (IA)] v (VP)] Voice (vP)] T (VoiceP)

This gives SOV surface order (with the verb possibly showing the structure root þ voice þ tense, which is very common crosslinguistically, see Julien 2002) and no FOFC violation. But of course passives (and other types of indirect derivation) are attested in SVO and languages with other word orders. Here, one possibility is

330

Ian Roberts

that participial morphology plays a role. Collins’ (2005) analysis of the passive is actually a little more complex than the above summary suggests in that he suggests that the VP is contained inside a participle phrase (PrtP). It is therefore this category which moves in an indirect derivation. In fact, if the direct object is indefinite and the expletive there appears in (Spec,TP), we can see the PrtP in its fronted position, without object movement, in examples like (14):2 (14)

There were [VoiceP [PrtP many students arrested VP] Voice [vP EA v (PrtP)]].

Here again, the boldfaced part of the structure shows an apparent FOFC violation. However, Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts (2010) observe and explain what they call the Category Proviso to FOFC. This states that, in the basic FOFC configuration in (2), repeated here, if XP and Z are distinct in category FOFC does not apply: (2)

*[ZP [XP X YP] Z]

The notion of category distinction that Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts apply is related to the notion of Extended Projection, as originated by Grimshaw (1991). Hence, all the functional categories making up the clause count as the same category, and similarly in the complex nominal making up the extended DP. However, we can adopt a traditional idea and consider that participles are not truly verbal, but share certain features (the ability to show gender but not person agreement in Romance, for example) with nominals rather than with verbs. If so, then we may be justified in regarding the PrtP in (14) as categorially distinct from Voice, which is clearly a verbal category. In that case, (14) does not instantiate a FOFC violation. More generally, indirect derivations in head-initial languages will be allowed, but on condition that the moving category be in some way non-verbal, characteristically a participial or infinitival element. This condition does not hold in head-final languages. So we predict that participial passives will be general in VO languages, and available as an option but not required in OV languages.3 What about ergative languages? Here there is no good motivation for invoking general participial morphology on all verbs. And in fact, we find a very clear skewing of ergativity in relation to word order: according to WALS (Map 81, Dryer 2008, and Map 98, Comrie 2008) SOV languages make up twenty-one out of forty (just over 50%) of ergative languages (including active and tripartite languages), and about 46% (497/1,223) of languages of all alignment types. SVO languages make up 36% of the 1,228 languages surveyed for clausal word order, but there are no SVO languages 2 Assuming that the verb root moves to Prt here (in order to pick up participial morphology), this example also shows that Prt triggers movement of the object. Presumably this is connected to Prt probing a subset of the object’s w-features, as can be overtly seen in part-participle agreement for gender and number in Romance. 3 It is unclear how well this prediction holds up; WALS unfortunately does not supply sufficient data on passive constructions, distinguishing just between their presence and absence.

Macroparameters and minimalism

331

showing an ergative pattern out of 190 languages surveyed, and only one showing an active-inactive pattern (Drehu; Oceanic). Even when one corrects for the bias towards case-marking in SOV as opposed SVO languages, this appears to be a significant and unexpected skewing. If ergative case-marking depends on an indirect derivation, FOFC is violated if VO order is retained. Hence the verb, the object or the entire VP must move again, entailing some order other than SVO. This evidence supports the idea that ergative derivations do not involve a special category ‘protecting’ the fronted category from the effects of FOFC, while passives do. We are now in a position to understand the nature of the passive-to-ergative shift. It may simply involve the loss of passive morphology (or the reinterpretation of this morphology as something else functioning as part of the verbal sequence of functional heads, e.g. as an aspect marker), and the retention of the indirect derivation. This derivation is ruled out by FOFC in an SVO system, but allowed in an SOV system. Hence the passive-to-ergative shift will be possible in SOV languages, and in this context we can note that the Indo-Iranian languages are SOV (and in fact, their word order has become more rigidly OV diachronically, since Sanskrit allowed a good deal of deviation from what was probably a basic OV pattern, like most of the older Indo-European languages; see Hale 1995 on Sanskrit word order). The Polynesian languages which have undergone this change present more of a challenge. Since they are VSO alternating with VOS, however, they may be amenable to the analysis proposed in Massam (2005), who proposes that these languages may in fact allow nominalized predicates; this property might also explain the relative rarity of VOS languages.4 It is clear that a number of questions remain open, but at the same time the postulation of the hierarchy in (10), like the others in the previous sections, raises a number of interesting questions for both synchronic and diachronic syntax. 17.2.4 Conclusion Although the above hierarchies almost certainly do not exhaust the inventory of syntactic macroparameters, together they determine a very large number of highly salient, yet still variable, surface properties. At the true macrolevel (i.e. the first choice point, highest in the hierarchy), and leaving aside word structure, these hierarchies determine the following surface properties (other things being equal):

4 A related point is that it is very likely that there are two different kinds of VSO languages, those which allow an alternative VOS order, have impoverished tense inflection, and allow ergative alignment, and those which show none of these properties. The former type is exemplified by Polynesian VSO languages, the latter by Celtic and Semitic VSO languages; see Biberauer and Roberts (2010) for details and a proposed explanation.

332 (15)

Ian Roberts a. b. c. d.

Head-final. Radical pro-drop. ‘Free word order.’ Accusative alignment.

These properties together define a very common type, including the Dravidian, Altaic, and most Finno-Ugric (except Finnish and one or two others) languages, as well as Japanese and Korean. Of course, it is possible that these shared features are on account of a macro-areal phenomenon, but this set of correspondences is predicted by the hierarchies, and the incompatibility of the polysynthesis value with the others is also predicted, since polysynthetic languages always allow free word order and pro-drop of all arguments (see Baker 1996). A further point is that, as syntactic parameters, the effects of these parameters must be visible in every language: no language can fail to choose basic order, whether or not to realize pronominal arguments, basic word structure, and the type of derivation which licenses subjects and direct objects. Similarly, the evidence for setting these parameters is highly salient in the primary linguistic data of language acquisition, and hence acquirers can be expected to arrive at the macrovalues very early (see Wexler 1998 on very early parameter setting). This can be seen in terms of the notion of parameter-expression, introduced in Clark and Roberts (1993) (this definition is from Roberts and Roussou (2003: 15)): (16)

A substring of the input text S expresses a parameter pi just in case a grammar must have pi set to a definite value in order to assign a well-formed representation to S.

Consider, for example, a very simple sentence such as the following: (17)

He ate it.

This sentence expresses the following macroparametric properties of English: SVO order, no null arguments (indirectly, if the referents of the pronouns are salient in context since they can be supposed to be empty in a system allowing null pronouns), morphological fusion and accusative alignment (indirectly, in relation to other parts of the paradigm). Comparable examples in other languages similarly express the major parameter values: (18)

a. L’ha mangiato. It.s/he-has eaten ‘S/he has eaten it’ b. Tabe-ta. eat-past ‘S/he has eaten it’

(Italian)

(Japanese)

Macroparameters and minimalism

c. Shakonúhwe’-s MsS/3pO-like- HAB ‘He likes them’ (Baker 1996)

333

(Mohawk)

As (18a.) shows, this simple Italian sentence expresses that language’s values for null-arguments, i.e. that it is a null-subject language, in that the subject pronoun is not expressed while the object is; it also expresses morphological fusion and accusative alignment. What it does not express is the SVO word order of Italian; in fact the position of the pronominal object clitic expresses OV order (although of course the corresponding sentence with a non-pronominal object would clearly express the general VO order of Italian). The Japanese example (18b.) expresses the general radical pro-drop nature of Japanese, and its agglutinating nature (the past-tense morpheme -ta regularly suffixes to verbs). Since the subject and object are not expressed, though, it does not express either alignment or word order. Finally, the Mohawk example in (18c.) expresses the pronominal-argument nature of the language (through the syncretic subject/object agreement prefix). These examples illustrate the salience of the hierarchies in the PLD. Further, it is clear that the hierarchies interact. As mentioned above, polysynthetic languages always allow pro-drop of all arguments (Baker 1996), agglutinating languages show a strong tendency to head-finality (although the SVO Bantu languages are an exception) and, as noted above, there are no SVO ergative languages. In some cases, as is particularly clear from Baker’s work on polysynthesis and from the suggestion in §2.5 regarding SVO ergative languages, there are principled reasons for this.

17.3 Theoretical questions In addition to the empirical richness of the predictions and implications of the parameter hierarchies, a number of theoretical issues arise. As mentioned in §1, the central theoretical question, given both Chomsky’s recent proposals and Newmeyer’s critique of P&P theory, concerns whether the parametric variation observed in the hierarchies, is specified in UG (as thought in the 1980s and 1990s), or whether it may be derived through ‘third-factor’ considerations as suggested by Chomsky (2005, 2007). The parameter hierarchies are defined by complexity relations: the higher settings are simpler, having a shorter description, than the lower ones. Both this notion of complexity and the acquisition strategy of Input Generalization are instances of a general notion of computational conservatism, which we can think of as a facet of computational efficiency. Input Generalization can be defined as follows:

334 (19)

Ian Roberts Generalization of the input: If acquirers assign a marked value to H, they will assign the same value to all comparable heads. (Roberts 2007)

(19) leads all the potentially movement-triggering functional heads to ‘point the same way’. It is not a grammatical principle, but an acquisition strategy, and is motivated by computational conservativity. Mobbs (2008) suggests that this is a reflection of a non-language specific optimization principle. On this view, then, macroparametric effects in grammatical systems derive from markedness, which emerges from the computational conservativity of the learner. In these terms, as we have seen, there is no need to formulate a difference between micro- and macroparameters. It emerges given our characterization of markedness. Hence, the form of the hierarchies, and the nature of markedness, arise from third-factor properties. Moreover, the different points in the hierarchies all instantiate the following general schema: (20)

Q(ff 2 C) [P(f)]

Here Q is a quantifier, f is a formal feature, C is a class of grammatical categories providing the restriction on the quantifier, and P is a set of predicates defining formal operations of the system (‘agrees’, ‘has an EPP feature’, ‘attracts a head’, etc.). The positions in the hierarchies differ in the specificity of the two arguments to the quantifier, C, the class of grammatical categories, and P, the predicates defining (conjunctions of) grammatical operations. The more specific either of these arguments, the more complex, and the more ‘micro’, the parameter. But arguably none of this is specified in UG: all that (20) really says is that UG leaves certain grammatical properties open (‘some quantification over formal features has some grammatical property’). The gaps left open are filled in by Input Generalization and the mode in which the learner ‘moves down’ the hierarchy, stopping, as stated in §1, at the earliest possible point compatible with experience. The form of parameters is thus not specified by UG, but is an emergent property of the interaction of UG, the acquirer and the data. In this way, parametric variation in fact arises from all three of the factors Chomsky (2005) discusses as contributing to language design: UG (underspecification), PLD, and the computational conservatism of the learner, which underlies (19). This approach is clearly highly compatible with recent minimalist thinking. Finally, a reconsideration of the formal mechanisms implicated in the four parametric hierarchies is of theoretical interest. Linearization and alignment depend on movement, and hence ultimately on the distribution of the movement trigger. On the other hand, the null-argument and word-structure hierarchies can be defined in purely set-theoretic terms; they are really just special cases of Agree, in that a given probe-goal relation has specific consequences (deletion, incorporation); the

Macroparameters and minimalism

335

choice of features related by Agree may have a range of syntactic consequences, as well as giving rise to differing morphological results. However, the movement trigger is not really a feature: it cannot be valued, checked, or, arguably, counted. Instead it should be seen as a consequence of the fact that merge is not restricted to applying only once: a head may choose to ‘remerge’ part of its complement, the secondmerged occurrence of the complement will inevitably asymmetrically c-command the first-merged one and the head, and so PF will linearize it to the left of the head and delete the first-merged occurrence. A head can do this just once because the system cannot count. This, effectively the general option of movement, may be the only contribution UG itself makes to cross-linguistic variation. The rest is on account of third-factor considerations and externalization. So we arrive at a slightly nuanced version of the Berwick–Chomsky conjecture: UG does not mind about movement, hence the wide range of surface variation following from the simple general option of remerge.

References Abels, Klaus (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Aboh, Enoch Oladé (2006). ‘Complementation in Saramaccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type modal particles’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 1–55. Adams, Marianne (1987a). ‘From Old French to the theory of pro-drop’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32. Adams, Marianne (1987b). Old French, null subjects and verb-second phenomena. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer (2005). ‘Variation in the Minimalist Program’. In Elise Leonie, Alexandra Cornips, and Karen P. Corrigan (eds), Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–178. Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer (2010). ‘Variation in agreement: A lexical featured-based approach’. Lingua 120(5): 1109–1134. Agouraki, Yoryia (1992). ‘Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A unification’. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 45–70. Ahlqvist, Anders (1983). ‘Two notes on relative marking in Old Irish’. Celtica 15: 10–12. Ahlqvist, Anders (1985). ‘The syntax of relative marking in Old Irish’. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 323–46. Alboiu, Gabriela (2002). The features of movement in Romanian. Bucharest: EUB. Aldridge, Edith (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Alexiadou, Artemis (2006). On the cross-linguistic distribution of (in)definiteness spreading. Ms., Univ. Stuttgart; paper presented at ÖLT Syntax Workshop, Universität Klagenfurt. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1998). ‘Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–540. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2001). ‘The Subject–in–situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations’. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2007). ‘The Subject–in–situ generalization revisited’. In Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Interfaces þ Recursion ¼ Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Studies in Generative Grammar 89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 31–59. Alexiadou, Artemis and Fanselow, Gisbert (2002). ‘On the correlation between morphology and syntax: the case of V-to-I’. In C. Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham (eds), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 219–242. Alexiadou, Artemis and Wilder, Chris (1998). ‘Adjectival modification and multiple determiners’. In Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 303–332.

References

337

AM ¼Maia, Clarinda de Azevedo (1986). História do galego-português. Estado linguístico da Galiza e do Noroeste de Portugal desde o século XIII ao século XVI. (Com referência à situação do galego moderno). Coimbra: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica. Ambar, Manuela (1999). ‘Aspects of the syntax of Focus in Portuguese’. In Georges Rebuschi and Laurice Tuller (eds), The grammar of Focus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 23–53. Ambar, Manuela (2002). ‘Wh-questions and wh-exclamatives—Unifying mirror effects’. In C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen, and P. Monachesi (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 15–40. Anand, Pranav and Nevins, Andrew (2006). ‘The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope’. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, (eds), Ergativity: Emerging issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 3–25. Anderson Stephen R. (1976). ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages’. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 1–23. Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). ‘Typological distinctions in word formation’. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–56. Anderson, Stephen R. (2002). ‘Syntax and morphology are different. Remarks on Jonas’ residual V-to-I’. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 271–75. Androutsopoulou, Antonia and Español-Echevarría, Manuel (2003). ‘Romance prepositional genitives: Multiple orders and structural asymmetry’. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28: 3–17. Arteaga, Deborah (1995). ‘On Old French genitive constructions’. In Jon Amastae et al. (eds), Contemporary research in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–90. Avelar, Juanito, Cyrino, Sonia, and Galves, Charlotte (2009). ‘Locative inversion and agreement patterns: Parallelisms between Brazilian Portuguese and Bantu languages’. In Margarida Petter and Ronald Beline Mendes (eds). Proceedings of the Special World Congress of African Linguistics São Paulo 2008. Exploring the African language connection in the Americas. São Paulo: Humanitas, 207–221. Avesani, Cinzia and Vayra, Mario (2003). ‘Broad, narrow, and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian’. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, and J. Romero (eds), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 2. Barcelona: Futurgraphic, 1803–1806. Avram, Larisa (1999). Auxiliaries and the structure of language. Bucharest: EUB. Ayoun, Dalila (2003). Parameter setting in language acquisition. London: Continuum Publishing. Bailyn, John Frederick (2004). ‘Generalized inversion’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 1–49. Baker, Mark C. (1985). ‘The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation’. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415. Baker, Mark C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.

338

References

Baker, Mark C. (2002). ‘Building and merging, not checking: The non-existence of (Aux)–S–V–O languages’. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 321–8. Baker, Mark C. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark. C. (2008a). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark C. (2008b). ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, Linguistics Today 132. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 351–74. Ball, Douglas (2007). On ergativity and accusativity in Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Central Pacific. Oceanic Linguistics 46(1): 128–53. Barbiers, Sjef (1995). The syntax of interpretation. The Hague: HAG. Barbosa, Pilar (2000). ‘Clitics: A window into the Null Subject Property’. In J. Costa (ed.), Portuguese syntax: New comparative studies. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 31–93. Barbosa, Pilar (2009). ‘Two kinds of subject pro’. Studia Linguistica 63(1): 2–58. Batllori, Montse (1992). ‘Preliminary remarks on Old Spanish auxiliaries: haber, ser, and estar’. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 87–112. Batllori, Montse, Sánchez, Carlos, and Suñer, Avelelina (1995). ‘The incidence of interpolation on the word order of romance languages’. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 185–209. Baxter, William H. and Sagart, Laurent (1998). ‘Word formation in Old Chinese’. In Jerome L. Packard (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. Trends in Linguistics 105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–76. Bayer, Josef, Bader, Markus, and Meng, Michael (2001). ‘Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German’. Lingua 111: 465–514. Beal, Joan C. (1993). ‘The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English’. In James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: Grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 187–214. Béjar, Susanah and Rezac, Milan (2009). ‘Cyclic Agree’. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73. Bell, Arthur (2004). Bipartite negation and the fine structure of the Negative Phrase. PhD Dissertation: Cornell University. Belletti, Adriana (2004). ‘Aspects of the low IP area’. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 16–51. Bendjaballah, Sabrina and Reintges, Chris H. (2009). ‘Ancient Egyptian verbal reduplication: Typology, diachrony, and the morphology–syntax interface’. Morphology 19(2): 135–57. Benincà, Paola (1984). ‘Un’ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali’. Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica 4: 3–19. Republished in Paola Benincà (1994) (ed.), La variazione sintattica. Bologna: Il Mulino, 177–194. Benincà, Paola (1989). ‘L’ordine delle parole nelle lingue romanze medievali’. XIX Congreso Internacional de Linguistica e Filoloxia Romanicas, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña. Ms. Benincà, Paola (1995). ‘Complement clitics in Medieval Romance: The Tobler-Mussafia Law’. In A. Battye and I. Roberts (eds), Language change and verbal systems. New York: Oxford.

References

339

Benincà, Paola (2001). ‘The position of Topic and Focus in the left periphery’. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds), Current studies in Italian syntax offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 39–64. Benincà, Paola (2004). ‘The left periphery of Medieval Romance’. Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online 2, 243–97. [http://www.humnet.unipi.it/slifo/2004vol2/Beninca2004.pdf ] Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia (2004). ‘Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers’. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–75. Benveniste, Émile (1952/1966). ‘La construction passive du parfait transitif ’. In Émile Benveniste (ed.), Problèmes de linguistique generale. Paris: Gallimard, 176–86. Bernini, Giuliano and Ramat, Paolo (1996). Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. A typological approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bernstein, Judy B. (1991). DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus 3(2): 101–26. Bernstein, Judy B. (1993). Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. PhD: dissertation, CUNY. Bernstein, Judy B. (2008a). ‘English th- forms’. In Alex Klinge and Henrik H. Müller (eds), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management. Bernstein, Judy B. (2008b). ‘The expression of third person in older and contemporary varieties of English’. English Studies 89(5): 571–86. Bernstein, Judy B. (2008c). ‘Reformulating the Determiner Phrase analysis’. Language and Linguistic Compass 2: 1–25. Berwick, Robert C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Berwick, Robert C. and Chomsky, Noam (2011). The Biolinguistic Program: The current state of its evolution. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), The Biolinguistic Enterprise New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bianchi, Valentina (1999). Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Biberauer, Theresa (2003). Verb second (V2) in Afrikaans: A minimalist investigation of word order variation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. Biberauer, Theresa (2008a). ‘Doubling and omission: Insights from Afrikaans negation’. In S. Barbiers, O. Koeneman, M. Lekakou, and M. van der Ham (eds), Microvariations in syntactic doubling. Bingley: Emerald, 103–40. Biberauer, Theresa (2008b). ‘Introduction’. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–72. Biberauer, Theresa (2009). ‘Jespersen off course? The case of contemporary Afrikaans negation’. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 92–129. Biberauer, Theresa (2012). ‘Competing reinforcements: when languages opt out of Jespersen’s Cycle’. In Ans van Kemenade and Nynke de Haas (eds), Historical linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–30.

340

References

Biberauer, Theresa, Newton, Glenda, and Sheehan, Michelle (2009a). The Final-over-Final Constraint and predictions for diachronic change. In R. Compton and M. Irimia (eds), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31: 1–17. Biberauer, Theresa, Newton, Glenda, and Sheehan, Michelle (2009b). Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: The Final-Over-Final Constraint. Language and Linguistics 10(4): 699–741. Biberauer, Theresa, Sheehan, Michelle and Newton, Glenda (2010). On impossible changes and impossible borrowings. In A. Breitbarth, C. Lucas, S. Watts, and D. Willis (eds), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 35–60. Biberauer, Theresa and Sheehan, Michelle (2012) Disharmony, antisymmetry, and the Finalover-Final Constraint. In M. Uribe-Etxebarria and V. Valmala (eds) Ways of Structure Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 206–44. Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian (2005). Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46. Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian (2010). ‘Subjects, Tense and Verb-movement’. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263–302. Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, and Roberts, Ian (2010). A syntactic universal and its consequences. Ms. Universities of Cambridge and Newcastle. Biberauer, Theresa and Zeijlstra, Hedde (2011). Inherent instability and spontaneous change: an Afrikaans case study. Unpublished ms: Universities of Cambridge/Stellenbosch and Amsterdam. Biberauer, Theresa and Zeijlstra, Hedde (in press). ‘Negative Concord in Afrikaans: Filling the typological gap’. To appear in Journal of Semantics. Bickerton, Derek (1971). ‘Inherent variability and variable rules’. Foundations of Language 7: 457–92. Bies, Ann (1996). Syntax and discourse factors in Early New High German: Evidence for verbfinal word order. M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Blaszczak, Joanna and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2005). ‘Intonational phrasing, discontinuity, and the scope of negation’. Syntax 8: 1–22. Bobaljik, Jonathan (1995). Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bobaljik, Jonathan (2002a). ‘Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax’. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–67. Bobaljik, Jonathan (2002b). ‘A–chains at the PF–interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(2): 197–267. Bobaljik, Jonathan and Jonas, Dianne (1996). ‘Subject positions and the roles of TP’. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236. Bobaljik, Jonathan and Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1998). ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’. Syntax 1: 37–71. Bobaljik, Jonathan and Wurmbrand, Susi (2005). ‘The domain of agreement’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4): 809–65.

References

341

Boeckx, Cedric (2009). Approaching parameters from below. Ms. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. Boeckx, Cedric (2011). ‘Approaching parameters from below’. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), The biolinguistic enterprise. New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–21. Boeckx, Cedric and Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2007). ‘Remark: Putting phases in perspective’. Syntax 10(2): 204–22. Bonnet, Max (1890). (repr. 1968). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Börjars, Kersti and Chapman, Carol (1998). ‘Agreement and pro-drop in some dialects of English’. Linguistics 36: 71–98. Borsley, Robert D., Tallermann, Maggie, and Willis, Davis (2007). The syntax of Welsh. Cambridge Syntax Guides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bošković, Željko (2008). ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’ In Proceedings of NELS 37. Boucher, Paul (2002). Determiner Phrases in Old and Modern French’. In Martine Coene and Yves D’Hulst (eds), From NP to DP. Volume I. The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47–70. Boucher, Paul (2004). ‘Perfect adjective positions in French: A diachronic perspective’. In Martine Coene et al. (eds), Current studies in comparative Romance linguistics. Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 41–61. Bowers, John (1988). ‘Extended X-Bar Theory, the ECP, and the Left Branch Condition’. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University, 47–62. Bowers, John (2010). Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boyd, Robert, Bogerhoff-Mulder, Monique, Durham, William H., and Richerson, Peter J. (1997). Are cultural phylogenies possible?. In P. Weingart, S. D. Mitchell, P. J. Richerson, and S. Maasen (eds), Human by nature. Between biology and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 355–86. Branner, David. P. (2002). ‘Common Chinese and Early Chinese morphology’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(4): 706–21. Braudel, Fernand (1985). La Mediterranée. Paris: Flammarion. Breatnach, Liam (1980). ‘Some remarks on the relative in Old Irish’. Ériu 31: 1–9. Bresnan, Joan (2007). ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation’. In S. Featherston and W. Sternefeld (eds), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77–96. Brocardo, Maria Teresa (2006). Livro de Linhagens do Conde D. Pedro. Edição do fragmento manuscrito da Biblioteca da Ajuda (século XIV). Lisboa: INCM. Brody, Michael (1995). ‘Focus and checking theory’. In I. Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, vol 1. Szeged: JATE, 29–44. Broekhuis, Hans (2007). ‘Object shift and subject shift’. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 109–41. Brucart, José M. (1991). ‘Pasividad y atribución en español: un análisis generativo’. In V. Demonte and B. Gurza et al. (eds), Estudios de Lingüística de España y México. México D.F.: UNAM, El Colegio de México, 179–208.

342

References

Brucart, José M. (1999). ‘La Estructura del Sintagma Nominal: Las Oraciones de Relativo’. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 395–522. Bures, Anton (1992). ‘(Re)-cycling expletives and other sentences’. Generals paper, MIT. Bush, Robert and Mosteller, Frederic (1951). ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’. Psychological Review 58: 313–23. Bush, Robert, and Mosteller, Frederic (1958). Stochastic models for learning . New York: Wiley. Butt, Miriam (2001). ‘A re-examination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds), Time over matter. Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 105–42. Butt, Miriam and Deo, Ashwini. (2005) ‘Ergativity in Indo-Aryan’. Ms. Universities of Constance and Stanford. Bynon, Theodora (2005). Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103: 1–72. Camões, José (coord.) (1999). Gil Vicente: todas as obras [CD-ROM] Lisboa: CNCDP. Campos, Hector and Stavrou, Melina (2004). Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian. In O. Tomic (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–44. Cardinaletti, Anna (1997). ‘Subjects and clause structure’. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London/New York: Longman, 33–63. Cardinaletti, Anna (2004). ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 115–65. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Starke, Michael (1999). ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns’. In H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 145–233. Cardona, George (1970). ‘The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) kr: tam’. Language 46: 1–12. Cardoso, Adriana (2010). Variation and change in the syntax of relative clauses: New evidence from Portuguese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lisbon. Carneiro, Zenaide and Galves, Charlotte (2010). ‘Variação e Gramática: colocação de clíticos na história do português brasileiro’. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem 18(2): 7–38. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1987). ‘Diachronic evidence and the affix-clitic distinction’. In Anna Giacalone Ramat et al. (eds), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151–62. Carston, Robyn (1998). ‘Negation, ‘presupposition’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction’. Journal of Linguistics 34(2): 309–50. Carston, Robyn (1999). ‘Metalinguistic negation and echoic use’. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 309–30. Carston, Robyn (1999). ‘Negation, ‘presupposition’ and metarepresentation: A response to Noel Burton-Roberts’. Journal of Linguistics 35: 365–89. Cavalli Sforza, Luca, Menozzi, Paolo, and Piazza, Alberto (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

References

343

Cecchetto, Carlo (1999). ‘A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance’. Studia Linguistica 53(1). Chierchia, Gennaro (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 336–405. Chomsky, Noam (1964). ‘Current issues in linguistic theory’. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds), The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 50–118. Chomsky, Noam (1973). ‘Conditions on transformations’. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 232–86. Chomsky, Noam (1977). ‘On wh-movement’. In P. W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian (eds), Formal syntax. New York: The Academic Press, 71–132. Chomsky, Noam (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Studies in Generative Grammar 9. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1991). ‘Some notes on economy of derivation and representation’. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 417–454. Reprinted in Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Current Studies in Linguistics 28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 129–66. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Current Studies in Linguistics 28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (2000). ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’. In R. Martin et al. (eds), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155. Chomsky, Noam (2001a). ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’. Cambridge MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Chomsky, Noam (2001b). ‘Derivation by phase’. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in linguistics. Current Studies in Linguistics 36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52. Chomsky, Noam (2004). ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’. In Adriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31. Chomsky, Noam (2005). ‘Three factors in language design’. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. Chomsky, Noam (2007). ‘Approaching UG from below’. In H.-M. Gärtner and U. Sauerland (eds), Interface þ Recursion ¼ Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–29. Chomsky, Noam (2008). ‘On phases’. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Marie Luisa Zubizaretta (eds), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Current Studies in Linguistics 45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–66. Chung, Sandra (1976). Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Harvard University dissertation. Chung, Sandra (1994). ‘Wh-agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamorro’. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–44. Chung, Sandra (1998). The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

344

References

Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). ‘On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’. In Guglielmo Cinque et al. (eds), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 85–110. Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (2001). ‘A note on Mood, Modality, Tense and Aspect suffixes in Turkish’. In Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (ed.), The verb in Turkish. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 47–59. Clark, Robin and Roberts, Ian (1993). ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345. Collins, Chris (2005). ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English’. Syntax 8(2): 81–120. Colonna, Vincenza, Boattini, Alessio, Guardiano, Cristina, Dall’Ara, Irene, Pettener, Davide, Longobardi, Giuseppe, and Barbujani, Guido (2010). ‘Long-range comparison between genes and languages based on syntactic distances’. Human Heredity 70: 245–54. Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard (2008). ‘Alignment of Case marking of full Noun Phrases’. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 98. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/98. Accessed on 20 February, 2010. Corblin, Francois, Déprez, Viviane, de Swart, Henriette, and Tovena, Lucia (2004). ‘Negative Concord’. In Francis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds), Handbook of French Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, Corver, Norbert (2005). ‘Comparative deletion and subdeletion’. In M. Everaert and H. C. van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell companion to syntax (Volume I). Malden, MA: Blackwell, 582–637. Costa, João (1998). Word order variation: A constraint-based approach. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Costa, João (2003). ‘Null vs. overt Spec,TP in European Portuguese’. In J. Quer, J. Schroten, M. Scorretti, P. Sleeman, and E. Verheugd (eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–47. Costa, João (2004). Subject positions and interfaces: The case of European Portuguese. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Costa, João, and Martins, Ana Maria (2003). ‘Clitic placement across grammar components’. Paper delivered at Going Romance 2003 (Seventeenth Conference on Romance Linguistics). Nijmegen, November 2003. Costa, João, and Martins, Ana Maria (2004). ‘What is a strong functional head?’. Paper delivered at Lisbon Workshop on Alternative Views on the Functional Domain. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, July 2004. Costa, João, and Martins, Ana Maria (2009). ‘Scrambling de média distância com advérbios locativos no português contemporâneo’. In A. Fiéis and M. A. Coutinho (eds), Actas do

References

345

XXIV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 225–37. Costa, João, and Martins, Ana Maria (2010). ‘Middle scrambling with deictic locatives in European Portuguese’. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe, and B. Hollebrandse (eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2008. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 59–76. Costa, João, and Martins, Ana Maria (2011). ‘On focus movement in European Portuguese’. Probus, 23(2): 217–45. Crisma, Paola (1991). Functional categories inside the Noun Phrase: A study on the distribution of nominal modifiers. Tesi di laurea, Università di Venezia. Crisma, Paola (1993). ‘Adjective placement in Romance and Germanic event nominals’. In Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 18: 61–100. Crisma, Paola (1996). ‘On the configurational nature of adjectival modification’. In Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical theory and Romance languages. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 133 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 59–71. Crisma, Paola (1997). L’articolo nella prosa inglese antica e la teoria degli articoli nulli. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Padova. Crisma, Paola (1999). ‘Nominals without the article in Germanic languages’. In Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 24 :105–25. Crisma, Paola and Gianollo, Chiara (2006). ‘Where did Romance N-raising come from? A parallel study of parameter resetting in Latin and English’. In Jenny Doetjes and Paz González (eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2004. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 71–93. Crisma, Paola and Longobardi, Giuseppe (2009). ‘Change, relatedness and inertia in historical syntax’. In P. Crisma and G. Longobardi (eds), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–13. Cruschina, Silvio (2006). ‘Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery’. In M. Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation. Berlin/New York: De Gryuter, 363–86. Cruschina, Silvio and Sitaridou, Ioanna (2009). ‘From modern to old Romance: The interaction between information structure and word order’. Paper presented at DIGS 11, University of Campinas, July 22–24, 2009. Culicover, Peter, and Rochemont, Michael (1990). ‘Extraposition and logical form’. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1): 23–47. Cyrino, Sonia and Reintges, Chris H. (2011). ‘Analyticization and the syntax of the synthetic residue: A macroparametric perspective’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation: Rethinking Parameters (27th–28th October 2011). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Madrid, Spain. D’Alessandro Roberta, Ledgeway, Adam, and Roberts, Ian (2010). Syntactic variation, The dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahlstrom, Amy (1983). ‘Agent-patient languages and split case marking systems’. In Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, BLS 9: 37–46. Davies, William and Dubinsky, Stanley (2004). The grammar of raising and control. Oxford: Blackwell.

346

References

Déchaîne, Rose-Marie and Wiltschko, Martina (2002). ‘Decomposing pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–42. Delfitto, Denis and Paradisi, Paola (2009). ‘For a diachronic theory of genitive assignment in Romance’. In P. Crisma and G. Longobardi (eds), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 292–310. Delfitto, Denis and Schroten, Jan (1991). ‘Bare plurals and the number affix in DP’. Probus 3(2): 155–85. Demirdache, Hamida and Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (2000). ‘The primitives of temporal relations’. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157–210. Demonte, Violeta and Fernández-Soriano, Olga (2009). ‘Force and Finiteness in the Spanish Complementizer System’. Probus (to appear). De Swart, Henriette (2010). Expression and interpretation of negation. Dordrecht: Springer. Den Besten, Hans (1983). ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’. In Werner Abraham (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47–137. Den Besten, Hans (1986). ‘Double Negation and the genesis of Afrikaans’. In Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith (eds), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis. Amsterdam Benjamins, 185–230. Den Besten, Hans and Webelhuth, Gert (1987). ‘Adjunction and remnant topicalization in the Germanic SOV-languages’. Paper presented at the GLOW Conference, Venice, 1987. Den Dikken, Marcel (2006). ‘Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction’. Unpublished Ms, CUNY. Den Dikken, Marcel (2007). ‘Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction’. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 1–41. Den Dikken, Marcel (2009). ‘On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity’. Talk given at the 40th conference of the North-East Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT, Cambridge, MA (USA). Devos, Maud, Kasombo Tshibanda, Michael, and van der Auwera, Johan (2010). ‘Jespersen cycles in Kanincin: Double, triple and maybe even quadruple negation’. Africana Linguistica 16: 155–82. Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company. Dias, Augusto E. (1918). Sintaxe Histórica Portuguesa. Lisboa: Clássica Editora, 1970 (5th ed). Dickson, Robert J. (1966). Ulster emigration to colonial America 1718–1775. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dictionary of the Scots Language. http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/. Diesing, Molly (1990). ‘Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 41–79. Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. (1979). ‘Ergativity’. Language 55: 59–138. Dixon, Robert M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1994). The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Donaldson, Bruce (1993). A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dorleijn, Margreet (1996). The decay of ergativity in Kurdish. Language internal or contact induced? Studies in multilingualism 3. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

References

347

Dresher, Elan (1999). ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–68. Drozd, Kenneth F. (2001). ‘Metalinguistic sentence negation in Child English’. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sanchez-Valencia, and Ton van der Wouden (eds), Perspectives on negation and polarity items. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–78. Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). ‘The position of Tense–Aspect affixes’. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 282–85. Dryer, Matthew S. (2008). ‘Order of Subject, Object and Verb’. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds), The world atlas of language structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 81. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/81. Accessed on February 20th, 2010. Duarte, Maria Eugênia (1992). ‘A perda da ordem V(erbo) S(ujeito) em interrogativas qu- no Português do Brasil’. D.E.L.T.A, Número Especial: 37–52. Duarte, Maria Eugênia (1995). A perda do princípio ‘Evite pronome’ no português brasileiro. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Campinas. Duarte, Inês (1997). ‘Ordem de Palavras: Sintaxe e Estrutura Discursiva’. In A. M. Brito, F. Oliveira, I. P. Lima, and R. M. Martelo (eds), Sentido que a Vida Faz: Estudos para Óscar Lopes. Porto: Campo das Letras, 581–592. Ducrot, Oswald (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann. Duffield, Nigel (1995). Particles & projections in Irish syntax. Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dummett, Michael (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. London: Duckworth. Dupuis, Fernande (1989). L’expression du sujet dans les subordonnées en ancien français. PhD dissertation., Université de Montréal. Ebert, Karen (1970). Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem Nordfriesischen Dialekt. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Kiel. Ebert, Robert Peter (1981). ‘Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in dependent clauses in Early New High German’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103: 204–37. Ebert, Robert Peter (1998). Verbstellungswandel bei Jugendlichen, Frauen und Männern im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ellegärd, Alvar (1953). ‘The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English’. In Frank Behre (ed.), Gothenburg studies in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Embick, David (2003). ‘Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions’. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–36. Embick, David and Noyer, Rolf (2001). ‘Movement operations after syntax’. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–95. Emonds, Joseph (1978). ‘The verbal complex V’–V in French’. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2): 151–75. Estival, Dominique and Myhill, John (1988). ‘Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems’. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice. Typological Studies in Language 16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 441–92.

348

References

Ferreira, José de Azevedo (1987). Afonso X. Foro Real. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica. 2v. Fontana, Josep M. (1993). Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Fontana, Josep M. (1997). ‘On the integration of second position phenomena’. In A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–49. Foulet, Lucien (1928). Petite Syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: Champion, 3rd revised edition. Franchetto, Bruna (1990). ‘Ergativity and nominality in Kuikúro and other Carib Languages’. In Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages Austin: University of Texas Press, 407–428. Frîncu, Constantin (1969). ‘Cu privire la ‘uniunea lingvistică balcanică’. Înlocuirea infinitivului prin construcţii personale în limba română veche’. Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară 20: 69–116. Fritzenschaft, Agnes, Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira, Tracy, Rosemarie, and Winkler, Susanne (1990). ‘Wege zur komplexen syntax’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9: 52–134. Fukui, Naoki (1986). Theory of projection in syntax (Studies in Japanese Linguistics 4). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret (1986). ‘Specifiers and projection’. In N. Fukui, T. R. Rapoport, and E. Sagey (eds), Papers in theoretical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 128–172 (¼ MITWPL 8). Gabriel, Christoph (2007). Fokus im Spannungsfeld von Phonologie und Syntax. Eine Studie zum Spanischen. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Gallego, Ángel J. (2006). ‘Phase effects in Iberian Romance’. In Nuria Sagarra and Almeida J. Toribio (eds), Selected Proceedings of the Ninth Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 43–55. Gallego, Ángel J. (2007). Phase theory and parametric variation. PhD Dissertation: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Gallego, Ángel J. (2010). Phase theory. Linguistics Today/Linguistik Aktuell 153. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gallmann, Peter (1998). ‘Case underspecification in morphology, syntax and the lexicon’. In Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 141–76. Galves, Charlotte (1993). ‘O enfraquecimento da concordância no Português Brasileiro’. In I. Roberts and M. A. Kato (eds), Português Brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP. Garrett, Andrew (1990). ‘The origin of NP split ergativity’. Language 66: 261–96. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira (1997). Der monolinguale und bilinguale erwerb von infinitivkonstruktionen: Ein vergleich von deutsch und englisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Gelderen, Elly van (2004). Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Giannakidou, Annastasia (2000). ‘Negative . . . Concord?’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.

References

349

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2006). ‘N-words and Negative Concord’. In Martin Everaert, Rob Goedemans, and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The syntax companion (volume 3). London: Blackwell, 327–91. Gianollo, Chiara (2005). Constituent structure and parametric resetting in the Latin DP: A diachronic study. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa. Gianollo, Chiara (2006). ‘Tracing the value of syntactic parameters in ancient languages: The Latin nominal phrase’. In Karlene Jones-Bley et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington, DC: Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, 143–163. Gianollo, Chiara (2011). ‘Native syntax and translation effects. Adnominal arguments in the Greek and Latin New Testament’. In Eirik Welo (ed.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics. Oslo: Oslo Studies in Language, 75–101. Gianollo, Chiara, Guardiano, Cristina, and Longobardi, Giuseppe (2008). ‘Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics’. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, Linguistics Today 132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109–42. Gildea, Spike (1998). On reconstructing grammar Oxford and New York: Oxford. Gildea, Spike (2000). On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–106. Giorgi, Alessandra and Longobardi, Giuseppe (1991). The syntax of Noun Phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giurgea, Ion and Remberger, Eva-Maria (2009). ‘Postverbal subjects in Romance null-subjects languages: Information-structural conditions and variation’. Paper presented at Going Romance, Nice, December 3–5, 2009. Giurgea, Ion and Remberger, Eva-Maria (in press). ‘Zur informationsstrukturellen Konfiguration und Variation postverbaler Subjekte in den romanischen Null-Subjekt Sprachen’. To appear in Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. Givón, Talmy (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vol. 1. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–113. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963). Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1974). Language typology: A historical and analytic overview. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 184. The Hague: Mouton. Grice, H. Paul (1967). ‘Logic and conversation’. Unpublished. William James lectures at Harvard University. [lecture 1 published in: P. Cole, and J. Morgan, eds (1975), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58; lecture 2 published in P. Cole, ed. (1978), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 113–128] Grimshaw, Jane (1991). ‘Extended projection’. Unpublished Ms: Rutgers University. Grimshaw, Jane (1997). ‘Projections, heads, and optimality’. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 373–422. Grosu, Alexander (1988). ‘On the distribution of genitive phrases in Rumanian’. Linguistics 26: 931–49. Guardiano, Cristina (2003). Struttura e storia del sintagma nominale nel Greco Antico: ipotesi parametriche. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa.

350

References

Guardiano, Cristina and Longobardi, Giuseppe (2005). ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’. In M. Batllori, M.-L. Hernanz, C. Picallo, and F. Roca (eds), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–74. Guruianu, Viorel (2005). Sintaxa textelor romaneşti originale din secolul al XVI-lea. Sintaxa propoziţiei. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti. Hacquard, Valentine (2009). ‘On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries’. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(3): 279–315. Hacquard, Valentine (2010). ‘On the event-relativity of modal auxiliaries’. Natural Language Semantics 18(1): 79–114. Haegeman, Liliane (1992). Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane (1995). The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane and Lohndal, Terje (2010). ’Negative Concord and Multiple Agree: A case study of West Flemish’. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 181–211. Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella (1991). ‘Negative heads and the NEG-criterion’. The Linguistic Review 8: 233–51. Haider, Hubert and Rosengren, Inger (1998). ‘Scrambling’. In I. Rosengren and O. Önnerfors (eds), Sprache und Pragmatik 49. Lund. Haig, Geoffrey (2008). Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. Hale, Kenneth (1970). ‘The passive and ergative in language change: The Australian case’. In S.A. Wurm and D. Laycock (eds), Pacific lingusitic studies in honor of Arthur Capell. Sydney, 757–81. Hale, Mark (1995). ‘Wackernagel’s Law in the Rigveda’, ms. University of Concordia. Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Martin (1978). The evolution of French Syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman. Haspelmath, Martin (2009). ‘An empirical test of the Agglutination Hypothesis’. In Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, and Antonietta Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 76. Dordrecht: Springer, 13–29. Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds) (2005). The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Berndt and Kuteva, Tania (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henry, Alison (1995). Belfast English and Standard English. New York: Oxford University Press. Henry, Alison and Cottell, Siobhan (2007). ‘A new approach to transitive expletives: Evidence from Belfast English’. English Language and Linguistics 11: 279–99. Herslund, Michael (1980). Problèmes de syntaxe de l’ancien français. Compléments datifs et génitifs. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Hill, Virginia (2008). ‘Pragmatics markers as syntactic heads: A case study from Romanian’. In K. Grohmann and P. Panagiotidis (eds), Selected papers from the Syntaxfest Cyprus Conference. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge University Scholars. 200–228.

References

351

Hill, Virginia and Mišeska-Tomić, Olga (2009). ‘A typology of subjunctive complements in Balkan languages’. University of Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XI(1): 197–208. Hinterhölzl, Roland (2006). Scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hiraiwa, Ken (2001). ‘Multiple agreement and the defective Intervention Effect’. In Ora Matsushansky (ed.), The Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 67–80. Hiraiwa, Ken (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Hohepa, Patrick (1969). ‘The accusative to ergative drift in Polynesian languages’. Journal of the Polynesian Society 78: 295–329. Holm, John 2004. Languages in contact, the partial restructuring of vernaculars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holm, John and Patrick, Peter (2007). Comparative creole syntax: Parallel outlines of 18 creole grammars. London: Battlebridge. Holmberg, Anders (2005). ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 531–64. Holmberg, Anders (2010). ‘Null subject parameters’. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts (eds), Parametric variation. Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–124. Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer (1995). The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Holmberg, Anders and Platzack, Christer (2005). ‘The Scandinavian languages’. In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, 420–58. Holmberg, Anders and Roberts, Ian (2010). ‘Introduction’. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts (eds), Parametric variation. Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–54. Hoop, Helen de (1992). Case configuration and Noun Phrase interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen. Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horn, Laurence R. (1985). ‘Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity’. Language 61: 121–74. Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 2001. Huang, C.-T. James (2007). ‘The macro-history of Chinese syntax and the theory of language change’. Talk given at the University of Chicago. Huang, C.–T. James. (2008). ‘Sino–Kwa: analyticity, parametric theory, and the lexical-functional divide’. Paper presented at the Conference on Functional Projections in Analytic Languages (31st October–1st November). Leiden University. Leiden, The Netherlands. Huang, C.–T. James. (2010). Between syntax and semantics. Routledge Leading Linguists 15. New York: Routledge. Huddlestone, Kate (2010). Negative indefinites in Afrikaans. PhD Dissertation: Utrecht University.

352

References

Iatridou, Sabine, and Kroch, Anthony S. (1992). ‘The licensing of CP-recursion and its relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50: 1–24. Ingham, Richard (2000). ‘Negation and OV order in Late Middle English’. Journal of Linguistics 26: 13–38. Institutul de Lingvistică (1963). Gramatica Academiei. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Iordan, Iorgu (1955). Ion Neculce, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Bucharest: Editura de Stat. Irimia, Monica (2008). ‘The Romanian presumptive and its evidential nature’. Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (online). Jelinek, Eloise (1984). ‘Empty categories, case, and configurationality’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 39–76. Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst. Jespersen, Otto (1918). ‘Chapters on English’. Reprinted 1960 in Selected Writings of Otto Jespersen. London: Allen & Unwin. Joffe, Judah A. (1949). Elia Bachur’s poetical works. With philological commentary, grammar and dictionary of Old Yiddish. Three volumes. Isny im Allgäu: Judah A. Joffe Publication Committee. Johannessen, Janne (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Kyle (1990). ‘On the syntax of inflectional paradigms’. Unpublished Ms., University of Wisconsin, Madison. Jonas, Dianne (1996). ‘Clause structure, expletives and verb movement’. In Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 167–88. Julien, Marit (2002). Syntactic heads and word formation (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaiser, Georg A. (2002). Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kallulli, Dalina (2007). ‘Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction’. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 770–80. Kato, Mary A. (1999). ‘Strong and weak pronominals and the null subject parameter’. Probus, 11(1): 1–31. Kato, Mary A. (2000). ‘The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese’. In M. Kato and E. Negrão (eds), The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana. 223–254. Kato, Mary A. and Negrão, Esmeralda (eds) (2000). The null subject parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, Frankfurt: Vervuert-IberoAmericana. Kato, Mary A. and Duarte, Maria Eugênia (2002). ‘A diachronic analysis of Brazilian Portuguese wh-questions’. In Eduardo P. Raposo (ed.), Romance philology. Santa Barbara: U. of California, 326–339. Katz, Jerrold, and Postal, Paul (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (1985). ‘L’accord du participe passé en français et italien’. Modèles Linguistiques 7: 73–91.

References

353

Kayne, Richard S. (1989a). ‘Notes on English agreement’. CIEFL Bulletin. Hyderabad, 41–67. Reprinted in Kayne, (2000). Parameters and universals. New York: OUP, 187–205. Kayne, Richard S. (1989b). ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’. In P. Benincà (ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 85–103. Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (2000). Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard S. (2001). ‘Pronouns and their antecedents’. In S. Epstein and D. Seely (eds), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 133–166. Kayne, Richard S. (2005a). ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’. In Gugliemo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–69. Kayne, Richard S. (2005b). ‘Some notes on comparative syntax’, with special reference to English and French. In Movement and silence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 277–334. Kayne, Richard S. and Pollock, Jean-Yves (2001). ‘New thoughts on stylistic inversion’. In A. Aulk and J. Y. Pollock (eds) Sulmed Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–162. Ms. NYU and Lyon. Keenan, Edward (1994). ‘Creating anaphors. An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns’. Ms. UCLA. Keenan, Edward (2000). ‘An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English’. Ms. UCLA. Keenan, Edward (2009). ‘Linguistic theory and the historical creation of English reflexives’. In P. Crisma and G. Longobardi (eds), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–40. Keenan, Edward and Comrie, Bernard (1977). ‘Noun Phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. Kikusawa, Ritsuko (2002). ‘Proto Central Pacific ergativity: Its reconstruction and development in Fijian, Rotuman, and Polynesian languages’. Pacific Linguistics 520. Kiparsky, Paul (1973). ‘Elsewhere in phonology’. In Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 93–107. Kiss, Katalin (2008). ‘Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases’. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 441–75. Kiss, Tibor (2003). ‘Phrasal typology and the interaction of topicalization, wh-movement and extraposition’. In J. Kim and S. Wechsler (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 109–28. Klavans, Judith L. (1985). ‘The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization’. Language 61(1): 95–120. Klimov, Georgij A. (1974). ‘On the character of languages of active typology’. Linguistics 131: 11–25. Klimov, Georgij A. (1977). Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja [Typology of languages of the active type]. Moscow: Nauka. Koch, John (1987). ‘Prosody and the Old Celtic verbal complex’. Ériu 38: 143–76. Koopman, Hilda and Sportiche, Dominique (1985). ‘Theta theory and extraction’. GLOW Newsletter 14, 57–8. Koster, Jan (2000). ‘Extraposition as parallel construal’. Ms, University of Groningen.

354

References

Kratzer, Angelika (1977). ‘What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–55. Kratzer, Angelika (2004). ‘Telicity and the meaning of Objective Case’. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), The syntax of time. Current Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 389–423. Kratzer, Angelika (2009). ‘Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237. Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244. Kroch, Anthony S. (1994). ‘Morpho-syntactic variation’. In Kenneth Beals et al. (eds), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation e linguistic theory, vol. 2: 180–201. Kroch, Anthony S. (2001). ‘Syntactic change’. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 699–729. Kroch, Anthony S. and Taylor, Ann (2000). ‘Verb-object order in early Middle English’. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, and A. Warner (eds), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 132–63. Kurath, Hans (1928). ‘The origin of the dialectal differences in spoken American English’. Modern Philology 25: 385–95. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, published in 1979, New York: Garland. Kuroda Sige-Yuki (1988). ‘Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese’. In W. J. Poser (ed.), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 103–43. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (2005). ‘Focusing on the matter of Topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14(1): 1–58. Labelle, Marie (2007). ‘Clausal architecture in early Old French’. Lingua 117: 289–316. Labov, William (1975) ‘On the use of the present to explain the past’. In L. Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguistics. Bologna: Società Ed. Il Mulino 825–51. Ladusaw, William (1992). ‘Expressing negation’. In Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds), Proceedings of SALT II. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 237–59. Laka, Itziar (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Laka, Itziar (1994). On the syntax of negation. New York: Garland. Lambert, Pamela Jean (1976). Ausklammerung in Modern Standard German. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Lash, Elliott (2011). A synchronic and diachronic analysis of Old Irish copular clauses. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University. Layton, Bentley (2000). A Coptic grammar, with chrestomathy and glossary. Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ledgeway, Adam (2005). ‘Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementiser system in the dialects of southern Italy’. Transactions of the Philological Society 103: 336–96.

References

355

Ledgeway, Adam (2008). ‘Satisfying V2 in early Romance: Merge vs. Move’. Journal of Linguistics 44: 437–70. Lee, Seong-yong (2007). ‘Sideward movement approach to extraposition from DP in English’. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 7(1): 27–49. Legate, Julie (2002). Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Legate, Julie (2006). ‘Split absolutive’. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds). Studies in natural language and linguistic theory Vol 65 143–71. Legate, Julie. (2008). ‘Morphological and abstract case’. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101. Lehmann, Winfred (1971). ‘On the rise of SOV patterns in New High German’. In K. Schweisthal (ed.), Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation: Festschrift für Alfred Hoppe. Bonn: Dümmler, 19–24. Lema, José and Rivero, María Luisa (1991). ‘Types of verbal movement in Old Spanish: modals, futures, and perfects’. Probus 3: 237–78. Lemieux, Monique & Dupuis, Fernande: (1995). ‘The locus of verb movement in nonasymetric verb second languages: The case of Middle French’. In Battye Adrian and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause structure and language change. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 80–109. Liberman, Mark and Sag, Ivan (1974). ‘Prosodic form and discourse function’. Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 416–27. Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, David (1989). ‘The child’s trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability’. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 12: 321–34. Lightfoot, David (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge/ MA: MIT Press. Lightfoot, David (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lightfoot, David (2006). How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindauer, Thomas (1998). ‘Attributive genitive constructions in German’. In Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 109–40. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1987). ‘Sulle piccole isole’. Italia Dialettale 50, 1987, 215–19. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1995). ‘A case of construct state in Romance’. In Roberto Ajello and Saverio Sani (eds), Scritti Linguistici e Filologici in onore di Tristano Bolelli. Pisa: Pacini, 293–329. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1996). The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory. OTS Working Papers, Research Institute for Language and Speech, University of Utrecht. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1997). ‘N-Raising and place names’. In R. Ambrosini, Maria Bologna, Patrizia, Filippo Motta, and Chatia Orlandi,e (eds.), Scríbthair a ainm n-ogaim. Scritti in memoria di Enrico Campanile, Pisa: Pacini, 521–33. Longobardi, Giuseppe (2001a). ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism and etymology: The history of French chez’. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.

356

References

Longobardi, Giuseppe (2001b). ‘The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters, and problems’. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 562–603. Longobardi, Giuseppe (2003). ‘Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history’. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–38. Longobardi, Giuseppe (2008). ‘Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters’. In A. Klinge and H. Müller (eds), Essays on nominal determination. Benjamins John, Philadelphia/Amsterdam: 189–211. Longobardi, Giuseppe and Guardiano, Cristina (2009). ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’. Lingua 119(11), spec. issue The Forests behind the Trees, ed. by John Nerbonne, 1679–1706. Lopes Rossi, Maria Aparecida (1996). As Orações Interrogativas-Q no Português do Brasil: um estudo diacrônico. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Campinas. Loprieno, Antonio (1995). Ancient Egyptian – A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lötscher, Andreas (1978). ‘Zur Verbstellung im Zürichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen’. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 45: 1–29. Lyons, Christopher (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macchi, Giuliano (1966). Crônica de D. Pedro de Fernão Lopes. Roma: Ateneo. Macchi, Giuliano (1975). Crónica de D. Fernando - Fernão Lopes. Lisboa: Imprensa NacionalCasa da Moeda. Machado Filho, A. V. L. (2003). Um Flos sanctorum do século XIV. Edições, glossário e estudo lingüístico. Tese de Doutoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia. Mahajan, Anoop (1994). ‘Universal Grammar and the typology of ergative languages’. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. Manolessou, Io (2000). Greek Noun Phrase structure. A study in syntactic evolution. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Mareş, Alexandru et al. (1994). Crestomaţia limbii române vechi. Vol I. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Martins, Ana Maria (1994). Clíticos na História do Português. Doctoral dissertation. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. Martins, Ana Maria (1997). ‘Mudança sintática, clíticos, negação e um pouquinho de scrambling’. Estudos Lingüísticos e Literários 19: 129–62. Martins, Ana Maria (2001). Documentos Portugueses do Noroeste e da Região de Lisboa. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda. Martins, Ana Maria (2002). ‘The loss of IP scrambling in Portuguese: Clause structure, word order variation and change’. In D. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 232–48. Martins, Ana Maria (2010). ‘Negação metalinguística (lá, lá e agora)’. In A. M. Brito, F. Silva, J. Veloso, and A. Fiéis (eds), Actas do XXIV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Porto: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 567–87. Martins, Ana Maria (2011). ‘How much syntax is there in metalinguistic negation?’. Poster presented at The 34th GLOW Colloquium, Vienna, April 28–31, 2011.

References

357

Marušič, Franc L. (2009). ‘Non-simultaneous spell-out in the clausal and nominal domain’. In Kleanthes K. Grohmann (ed.), InterPhases: Phase-theoretic investigations of the linguistic interfaces (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151–81. Mascarenhas, Salvador (2007). ‘Complementizer doubling in European Portuguese’. Homepages.nyu.edu. Massam, Diane (2000). ‘VSO and VOS: Aspects of Nieuan word order’. In Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds), The syntax of verb–initial languages. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–116. Massam, Diane (2005). ‘Lexical categories, lack of inflection, and predicate fronting in Niuean’. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds), Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistic Today 73. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, 227–242. Massam, Diane (2010). ‘On the left in Niuean’. Lingua 120(2): 284–302. Matras, Yaron (1992). ‘Ergativity in Kurmanji (Kurdish)’. Orientalita Suecana XLI-XLII (1992–1993): 139–54. Matras, Yaron (1997). ‘Clause combining, ergativity, and coreferent deletion in Kurmanji’. Studies in Language 21(3): 613–53. Matthews, W. K. (1952). ‘The ergative construction in Modern Indo-Aryan’. Lingua 3: 391–406. Mattos e Silva, R. V. (1971). A mais antiga versão portuguesa dos ‘Quatro livros dos diálogos de São Gragório’. Tese de Doutoramento. Universidade de São Paulo. Mattos e Silva, R. V. (1989). Estruturas Trecentistas: Elementos para uma gramática do português arcaico. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda. McCafferty, Kevin (2003). ‘The Northern Subject Rule in Ulster: How Scots, How English?’ Language Variation and Change 15: 105–39. McCafferty, Kevin (2004). ‘ “Thunder storms is verry dengese in this countrey they come in less than a minnits notice . . . ”: The Northern Subject Rule in Southern Irish English’. English World-Wide 25: 51–79. McCloskey, James (1991). ‘Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish’. Lingua 85 (2–3): 259–302. McCloskey, James (1996). ‘Subjects and subject positions in Irish’. In Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts (eds), The syntax of Celtic languages: A comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 241–83. McCloskey, James (2001). ‘The distribution of subject properties in Irish’. In William D. Davis and Stanley Dubinsky (eds), Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories and configurationality. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 52. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 157–92. McCloskey, James (2009). ‘Part one: Filler-gap dependencies’. Handout, Formal Approaches to Celtic Linguistics, University of Arizona, March 23, 2009. McCloskey, James and Hale, Kenneth (1984). ‘On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533. McCone, Kim (1980). ‘The nasalizing relative clause with object antecedent in the Glosses’. Ériu 31: 10–27.

358

References

Meillet, Antoine (1912). ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’. Reprint 1958 in A. Meillet Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, 130–58. Mensching, Guido (2003). ‘Minimalistische Syntax der romanischen Sprachen’. In E. Stark and U. Wandruszka (eds), Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive. Tübingen: Narr, 171–91. Mensching, Guido and Remberger, Eva-Maria (2010). ‘The left periphery in Sardinian’. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Roberts, and A. Ledgeway (eds), Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261–76. Mensching, Guido and Remberger, Eva-Maria (2011). ‘Syntactic variation and change in Romance: A minimalist approach’. In P. Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 361–403. Mensching, Guido and Savelsberg, Frank (2009). ‘V2 meets vP: Untersuchungen zur altromanischen Worstellung’. Paper presented at the 31st Deutscher Romanistentag, University of Bonn, Sept. 27-Oct. 1, 2009. Meurman-Solin, Anneli (1992). ‘On the morphology of verbs in Middle Scots: Present and present perfect indicative’. In M. Rissanen, O. Ihalainen, T. Nevalainen, and I. Taavitsainen (eds), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 611–23. Meurman-Solin, Anneli (1993). ‘Periphrastic do in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scots’. In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Minna Palander-Collin (eds), Early English in the Computer Age. Topics in English Linguistics 11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 235–51. Milsark, Gary (1974). Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Mithun, Marianne (1991). ‘Active/agentive case marking and its motivations’. Language 67(3): 510–46. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989). Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and Semantics 22. New York: Academic Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2005). ‘On the EPP’. In M. McGinnis and N. Richards (eds), Perspective on phases. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 201–36 (¼ MITWPL 49). Mobbs, Iain (2008). “Functionalism”. The design of the language faculty, and (disharmonic) typology’. University of Cambridge, MPhil dissertation. Molinelli, Piera (1996). ‘Casi e preposizioni in latino: lo sviluppo del genitivo e del dativo. Una prospettiva (anche) sociolinguistica’. Linguistica e Filologia 3: 73–125. Montgomery, Michael (1989). ‘Exploring the roots of Appalachian English’. English WorldWide 10: 227–78. Montgomery, Michael (1994). ‘The evolution of verb concord in Scots’. In Alexander Fenton and Donald A. MacDonald (eds), Studies in Scots and Gaelic: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh: Canongate Academic and the Linguistic Survey of Scotland, 81–95. Montgomery, Michael (1997). ‘Making transatlantic connections between varieties of English: The case of plural verbal -s’. Journal of English Linguistics 25: 122–141. Montgomery, Michael (2004). ‘Solving Kurath’s puzzle: Establishing the antecedent of the American Midland region’. In R. Hickey (ed.), Legacies of Colonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310–25.

References

359

Montgomery, Michael (2006a). ‘Notes on the development of existential they’. American Speech 81: 132–45. Montgomery, Michael (2006b). ‘The morphology and syntax of Ulster-Scots’. English WorldWide 27: 295–329. Montgomery, Michael and Hall, Joseph S. (eds) (2004). Dictionary of Smoky Mountain English. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Motapanyane, Virginia and Avram, Larisa (2000). ‘The syntax of putea and its mixed typology’. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 145–62. Motohashi, Tatsushi (1989). Case theory and the history of the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. Müller, Gereon (1998). Incomplete category fronting: A derivational approach to remnant movement in german. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Munn, Alan (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Murray, James A. H. (1873). The dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland: Its pronunciation, grammar, and historical relations. London: Philological Society, 209–15. Muysken, Pieter (2008). Functional categories. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newmeyer, Frederick (2004). ‘Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation’. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 181–234. Newmeyer, Frederick (2005). Possible and probable languages. A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newton, Glenda (2006). The development and loss of the Old Irish double system of verbal inflection. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge University. Nichols, Johanna (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago. Nichols, Johanna (1994). ‘Ergativity and linguistic geography’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 13: 39–89. Nikitina, Tatiana (2008). ‘Nominalisation and word-order change in Niger-Congo’. Unpublished Ms: Stanford University. [Available on-line at: http://www.stanford.edu/ ~tann/word_order.pdf] Niyogi, Partha and Berwick, Robert C. (2005). The logical problem of language change. Technical Report AI Memo: 1516, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Nunes, Jairo (1990). ‘Nominative pronoun reduction in Brazilian Portuguese’. University of Maryland. Ms. Nunes, Jairo (2001). ‘Sideward movement’. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–44. Nunes, Jairo (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA/ London: MIT Press. Nuñez Cedeño, Rafael (1983). ‘Pérdida de Trasposición de Sujeto en Interrogativas Pronominales del Español Del Caribe’. Thesaurus 38: 35–57. Ó hUiginn, Ruairí (1986). ‘Old Irish nasalizing relative clauses’. Ériu 37: 33–86. Ó hUiginn, Ruairí (1987). ‘Notes on Old Irish syntax’. Ériu 38: 177–83. Ó Siadhial, Mícheál (1989). Modern Irish: Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

360

References

Obenauer, Hans-Georg (2006). ‘Special interrogatives – Left-periphery, wh-doubling, and (apparently) optional elements’. In J. Doetjes and P. Gonzáles (eds), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–73. Olsvanger, Immanuel (ed.) (1947). Royte Pomerantsen. Schocken Books. Ordoñez, Francisco and Olarrea, Anton (2006). ‘Micro-variation in Caribbean/nonCaribbean Spanish interrogatives’. Probus 18: 59–96. OVI ¼ Opera del Vocabolario Italiano (OVI) textual database, http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/ efts/ARTFL/projects/OVI/. Pagotto, Emílio (1992). A posição dos clíticos em Português: Um estudo diacrônico. Unpublished MA thesis, Unicamp. Palm, Lars (1977). La Construction ‘Li filz le rei’ et les constructions concurrentes avec ‘a’ et ‘de’ étudiées dans des oeuvres littéraires de la seconde moitié du 17. siècle et du premier quart du 18. siècle. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Panaitescu, Petre (1958). Grigore Ureche, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Bucharest: Editura de Stat. Panaitescu, Petre (1979). Miron Costin, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei. Bucharest: Editura Minerva. Pantoja Rivero, Juan Carlos (ed.) (2009). Pedro López de Santa Catalina, Libro segundo de Espejo de Caballería. Alcalá de Henares: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos. Paoli, Sandra (2007). ‘The ‘double che constructions’: A comparative perspective’. Cambridge University, Ms. Payne, John (1980). The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51: 147–86. Penner, Zvi (1990). ‘On the acquisition of verb placement and verb projection raising in Bernese Swiss German’. In M. Rothweiler (ed.), Spracherwerb und grammatik: linguistische untersuchungen zum erwerb von syntax und morphologie. Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag, 166–89. Pereira, S. B. (1964). Vocabulário da ‘Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha’. Rio: INL. Pesetsky, David and Torrego Esther (2001). ‘T–to–C movement: Causes and consequences’. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in linguistics. Current Studies in Linguistics 36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 355–426. Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther (2005). ‘Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories’. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), The syntax of time. Current Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 495–537. Piel, Joseph and Nunes, Irene (1988). A Demanda do Santo Graal. Lisboa: INCM. Pietsch, Lukas (2005a). The grammar of variation: Verbal agreement in northern dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pietsch, Lukas (2005b). ‘ “Some do and some doesn’t”: Verbal concord variation in the north of the British Isles’. In Bernd Kortmann, Tanja Hermann, Lukas Pietsch, and Susanne Wagner (eds), A comparative grammar of british english dialects: Agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 125–209. Pintzuk, Susan (1991). Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Pintzuk, Susan (2005). ‘Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English’. English Language and Linguistics 9: 115–38.

References

361

Pintzuk, Susan and Taylor, Ann (2006). ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’. In A. van Kemenade and B. Los (eds), Blackwell handbook of the history of English. Blackwell. Pintzuk, Susan and Haeberli, Eric (2006). ‘Head-final structure in Old English root clauses’. Paper presented at DiGS IX. University of Trieste. Pîrvulescu, Mihaela (2002). Le concept de paradigme et la morphologie verbale. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Plank, Frans (1979). ‘The functional basis of case systems and declension classes: From Latin to Old French’. Linguistics 17: 611–40. Plank, Frans (1992). ‘From cases to adpositions’. In Nicola Pantaleo (ed.), Aspects of English diachronic linguistics. Papers read at the Second National Conference of History of English. Fasano: Schena, 19–61. Platzack, Christer and Holmberg, Anders (1989). ‘The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic VO-languages’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 51–76. Poletto, Cecilia (2002). ‘The left-periphery of V2 Rhaetoromance dialects: A new view on V2 and V3’. In Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips, and Susanne van der Kleij (eds), Syntactic microvariation. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics, 214–42. Poletto, Cecilia (2005). ‘The left periphery of phases: Old Italian IP and DP scrambling’. Paper presented at GLOW 2005, University of Geneva, March 31-April 2, 2005. Poletto, Cecilia (2006a). ‘Old Italian scrambling: The low left periphery of the clause’. In P. Brandt and E. Fuss (eds), Form, structure, and grammar. A festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 209–28. Poletto Cecilia (2006b). ‘Parallel phases: A study on the high and low left periphery of Old Italian’. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 261–95. Poletto, Cecilia (2008). ‘Die linke Peripherie der “unteren Phase”: OV-Stellung im Altitalienischen’. In E.-M. Remberger and G. Mensching (eds), Romanistische Syntax – minimalistisch. Tübingen: Narr, 131–56. Poletto, Cecilia and Obenauer, Hans-Georg (2000). ‘Rhetorical wh-phrases in the left periphery of the sentence’. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10(1): 121–51. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 365–424. Polotsky, Hans Jakob (1987/1990). Grundlagen des koptischen Satzbaus. American Studies in Papyrology 28/29. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press. Pomino, Natascha (2008). Spanische Verbalflexion. Eine minimalistische Analyse im Rahmen der Distributed Morphology. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ponelis, Frederick (1993). The development of Afrikaans. Duisburg: Peter Lang. Poole, Geoffrey (2006). ‘Interpolation and the left periphery in Old Spanish’. In M. Hussein, M. Kolokonte, and C. Wright (eds), Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 188–216. Postal, Paul M. (1966). ‘On so-called pronouns in English’. In Francis P. Dineen (ed.), Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 19, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 177–206. Postma, Gertjan (2010). ‘The impact of failed changes’. In Anne Breitbarth, Chris Lucas, Sheila Watts, and David Willis (eds), Continuity and change in grammar. Benjamins, 269–302.

362

References

Prell, Heinz-Peter (2001). Der mittelhochdeutsche Elementarsatz. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung an Prosatexten des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts. Oslo: Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2004). ‘From Archaic Chinese to Mandarin’. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds), Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation. 2 vols. Volume 2. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17/2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1730–1740. Quer, Josep (1998). Mood at the interface. Utrecht: LOT. Quinn, E. G. et al. (eds), (2007 [1913–75]). Dictionary of the Irish language, based mainly on Old and Middle Irish materials. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the english language. London: Longman. Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin (2005). ‘Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study’. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–99. Radford, Andrew (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raposo, Eduardo (1995). ‘Próclise, Ênclise e a Posição do Verbo em Português Europeu’. In J. Santos and F. Williams (eds), O Amor das Letras e das Gentes. In Honor of Maria de Lourdes Belchior Pontes. Santa Barbara: Center for Portuguese Studies. University of California. Reenen, Pieter van and Schøsler, Lene (2000). ‘Declension in Old and Middle French. Two opposing tendencies’. In John C. Smith and Delia Bentley (eds), Historical linguistics 1995. Vol. 1. General issues and non-Germanic languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 327–44. Reinhart, Tanya (1995). ‘Interface strategies’. Ms., OTS/Utrecht University. Reintges, Chris H. (1997). Passive Voice in Older Egyptian: A Morpho-syntactic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. HIL Dissertation Series no. 28. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Reintges, Chris H. (2001). ‘Aspects of the morphosyntax of subjects and objects in Coptic Egyptian’. In Hans Broekhuis and Ton van der Wouden (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 77–188. Reintges, Chris H. (2004). Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): A learner’s grammar. Afrikawissenschaftliche Lehrbücher (Africanist Studybooks) 15. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Reintges, Chris H. (2005a). ‘The correlation between word order alternations, grammatical agreement and event semantics in Older Egyptian’. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages. Studies in Generative Grammar 83. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 31–103. Reintges, Chris H. (2005b). ‘On passive participles and relative forms’. Lingua Aegyptia 13: 103–39.

References

363

Reintges, Chris H. (2009). ‘Spontaneous syntactic change’. In Paola Crisma and Guiseppe Longobardi (eds), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 41–57. Reintges, Chris H. (2011). ‘High analyticity and Coptic particle syntax’. In Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds), The Linguistic Review. Special Edition on the Syntax of Particles, 45 pp. Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Jonathan Cape. Ribeiro, Ilza (1993). ‘Um estudo da ênclise nas estruturas completivas do português arcaico’. ABRALIN 14: 369–80. Ribeiro, Ilza (1994). ‘A ordem das palavras no francês e no português arcaico’. Estudos Lingüísticos e Literários 16: 63–81. Ribeiro, Ilza (1995a). A sintaxe do português arcaico; o efeito V2. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Campinas. Ribeiro, Ilza (1995b). ‘Evidence for a verb-second phase in Old Portuguese’. In A. Battye and I. Roberts (eds), Language change and verbal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–39. Ribeiro, Ilza (2009). ‘Sobre os usos de ênclise nas estruturas subordinadas no português arcaico’. VI Congresso Internacional da ABRALIN. João Pessoa, Brasil. Richards, Marc D. (2007). ‘On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition’. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 563–72. Richards, Marc D. (2008). ‘Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system’. In Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, and Jochen Trommer (eds), Varieties of competition. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 81, pp. 133–162. Rigon, Gabriele (2009). A quantitative approach to the study of syntactic evolution. Doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa. Ritter, Elizabeth (1991). ‘Two functional categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew’. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and semantics 26. San Diego: Academic Press, 37–62. Ritter, Elizabeth (1993). ‘Where’s gender?’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 795–803. Ritter, Elizabeth and Wiltschko, Martina (2005). ‘Anchoring events to utterances without tense’. In J. Alderete, H. Chung-Hye, and A. Kochetov (eds), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 343–51. Ritter, Elizabeth and Wiltschko, Martina (2009). ‘Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON’. In H. Broekhuis, J. van Craenenbroeck, and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), Alternatives to cartography. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 153–202. Rizzi, Luigi (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1997). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’. In Liliana Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337. Roberge, Paul (1994). The formation of Afrikaans. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University Publishers. Roberge, Paul (2000). Etymological opacity, hybridization, and the Afrikaans brace negation’. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 12: 101–76.

364

References

Roberge, Yves (2002). ‘Transitivity requirement effects and the EPP’. Paper presented at WECOL 2002, UBC. Roberts, Ian (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian (1998). Review of Alice Harris and Lyle Campbell, Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Romance Philology 51: 363–70. Roberts, Ian (2001). ‘Language change and learnability’. In S. Bertolo (ed.), Parametric linguistics and learnability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–125. Roberts, Ian (2004). ‘The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP’. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297–328. Roberts, Ian (2005). Principles and parameters in a VSO language: A case study in Welsh. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian (2010a). ‘A deletion analysis of null subjects’. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, and M. Sheehan (eds), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–87. Roberts, Ian (2010b). ‘Varieties of French and the null subject parameter’. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, and M. Sheehan (eds), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303–27. Roberts, Ian (2010c). Agreement and head-movement. Clitics, incorporation and defective goals. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roberts, Ian (forthcoming). ‘Direct and indirect derivations’. Ms., University of Cambridge. Roberts, Ian and Holmberg, Anders (2010). ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Parametric variation, Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–57. Roberts, Ian and Kato, Mary A. (1993). Português Brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP. Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna (2003). Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, Philip (1997). Ulster-Scots: A grammar of the traditional written and spoken language. Belfast: The Ullans Press. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1958). ‘La perdita dell infinito nelle lingue balcaniche e nell’Italia Meridionale’. In Institutul de Lingvistică (eds), Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 733–43. Rosén, Hannah (1999). Latine loqui. Trends and directions in the crystallization of Classical Latin. München: Fink. Rouveret, Alain (2010). ‘On Verb–Subject languages’. Lingua 120(2): 232–63. Saito, Mamuoro (2007). ‘Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis’. Language Research 43: 203–27. Salvi, Giampaolo (1989). ‘L’ordine delle parole in galego-portoghese antico’. XIX Congreso Internacional de Linguística e Filoloxía Románicas. Santiago de Compostela, Espanha.

References

365

Salvi, Giampaolo (1990). ‘La sopravvivenza della legge di Wackernagel nei dialetti occidentali della Peninsola Iberica’. Medioevo Romanzo 15: 117–210. Salvi, Giampaolo (1993). ‘Ordine delle parole e struttura della frase nelle lingue romanze antiche’. Alfa 37: 187–203. Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., and Smith E., (2005). GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.htm Santorini, Beatrice (1989). The generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the history of Yiddish. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Santorini, Beatrice (1992). ‘Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 595–640. Santorini, Beatrice (1993). ‘The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish’. Language Variation and Change 5: 257–83. Santorini, Beatrice (1997/2008). The Penn Yiddish Corpus. University of Pennsylvania. For details, contact: [email protected]. Sapir, Edward (1911). ‘The problem of noun incorporation in American languages’. American Anthropologist 13: 250–282. Sapir, Edward (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt Brace. Sapp, Christopher D. (2011). The verbal complex in subordinate clauses from Medieval to Modern German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sapp, Christopher D. (in preparation). ‘Extraposition in Middle and Early New High German’. Sarmento, Simone (2007). ‘The case of “can” ’. ReVEL V.5 (8). [www.revel.inf.br] Sauerland, Uli and Elbourne, Paul (2002). ‘Total reconstruction, PF-movement and derivational order’. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319. Schlegel, August (1817). Über dramatische Kunst und Litteratur, Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas. 2nd edition, 3 volumes. Heidelberg: Mohr & Winter. Schleicher, August (1861–2). Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Altiranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen, 2 volumes. Weimar: Böhlau. Schneider, Edgard W. (2004). ‘The English dialect heritage of the southern United States’. In R. Hickey (ed.), Legacies of Colonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 262–309. Schøsler, Lene (1973). ‘Sur la disparition de la déclinaison casuelle de l’ancien français’. Revue Romane 8: 242–61. Schøsler, Lene (1984). La Déclinaison bicasuelle de l’ancien français. Odense: Odense University Press. Schumacher, Stefan (2004). Die keltische Primärverben. Innsbruck: IBS. Sheehan, Michelle (2009) ‘The Final-over-Final Constraint as an effect of Complement Stranding’. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 104–25. Shlonsky, Ur (2004). ‘The form of Semitic Noun Phrases’. Lingua 114 (2): 1465–1526. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. Siloni, Tal (1997). Noun Phrases and nominalizations. The syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

366

References

Silverstein, Michael (1976). ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 112–71. Smits, Rik (1988). The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Speas, Margareth (1994). ‘Null arguments in a theory of economy of projection’. In E. Benedicto and J. Runner (eds), Functional projections. UMOP, 17. Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Sportiche, Dominique (1990). ‘On movement, agreement and case’. Ms., UCLA. Sportiche, Dominique (1992). ‘Clitics, voice and Spec/Head licensing’. GLOW Newsletter 28: 46–7. Sproat, Richard (1985). ‘Welsh syntax and VSO structure’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(2): 173–216. Stavrou, Melita (1999). ‘The position and serialization of APs in the DP: Evidence from Greek’, In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, and M. Stavrou (eds), Studies in Greek syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 201–25. Strunk, Jan (2007). ‘Extraposition mythbusting’. Talk at the Stanford Syntax Workshop, March 13, 2007. Available in: http://www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~strunk/pubeng. html Takano, Yuji (1998). ‘Object shift and scrambling’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(4): 817–89. Tanaka, Tomyuki (2000). ‘On the development of transitive expletive constructions in the history of English’. Lingua 110: 473–95. Thiersch, Craig (1985). ‘VP and scrambling in the German Mittelfeld’. Ms., University of Tilburg. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1996). ‘On the (non-)universality of functional categories’. In W. Abraham, S. Epstein, H. Thraínsson, J.-W. Zwart (eds), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 253–81. Thurneysen, Rudolph (1946). A grammar of Old Irish, D. A. Binchy and Osborn Bergin (trans.). Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Togeby, Knud (1974). Précis historique de grammaire française. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Toribio, Almeida J. (1996). ‘Dialectal variation in the licensing of null referential and expletive subjects’. In Carlos Prodi, Carlos Quicoli, Mario Saltarelli, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Aspects of Romance linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Torres Morais, Maria Aparecida (1995). ‘Do Português Clássico ao Português Europeu Moderno: um estudo da cliticização e movimento do verbo’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Campinas. Torres Morais, Maria Aparecida (1997). ‘Aspectos da sintaxe da ordem nas sentenças finitas na obra pedagógica de João de Barros’. Estudos Lingüísticos e Literários 19: 197–216. Tortora, Christina (2006). ‘The case of Appalachian expletive they’. American Speech 81: 266–96.

References

367

Tortora, Christina and den Dikken, Marcel (2010). ‘Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach’. Lingua 120 (5): 1089–1108. Ura, Hiroyuki (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, Juan (1995a). ‘A F position in Western Romance’. In K. É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 153–75. Uriagereka, Juan (1995b). ‘Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance’ Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123. Uriagereka, Juan (2004). ‘Proto-Basque’. Lecture given at Syntax Fest, Indiana University Bloomington. Uriagereka, Juan (2006). ‘Towards a syntax of Proto-Basque’. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo: International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 40: 949–68. Uriagereka, Juan (2007). ‘Clarifying the notion “Parameter” ’. Biolinguistics 1: 99–113. Väänänen, Veikko (1981). ‘La préposition latine de et le génitif’. In Veikko Väänänen, Recherches et récréations latino-romanes. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 89–119. van Kemenade, Ans (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Vance, Barbara (1988). Null subjects and syntactic change in Medieval French. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Vance, Barbara (1997). Syntactic change in Medieval French: Verb Second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vikner, Sten (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Vikner, Sten (1997). ‘V-to-I movement and inflection for person in all tenses’. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, 189–213. Vincent, Nigel (1997). ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’. In A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–69. Vincent, Nigel (1999). ‘The evolution of C-structure: Prepositions and PPs from IndoEuropean to Romance’. Linguistics 37 (6): 1111–1153. von Stechow, Arnim (1996). ‘Introduction: on partial wh-movement’. In U. Lutz and G. Müller (eds), Papers on wh-scope marking. Sonderforschungsbereich 340, University of Tübingen. Vries, Mark de (2002). The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT. Vries, Mark de (2009). ‘Specifying coordination: An investigation into the syntax of dislocation, extraposition and parenthesis’. In C. Dreyer (ed.), Language and linguistics: Emerging trends. New York: Nova, 37–98. Waddington, Conrad Hall (1977). Tools for thought. London: Jonathan Cape. Wallenberg, Joel C. (2008). ‘Scrambling and phrase structure in Early and Modern Yiddish’. Paper presented at the 10th Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS) Conference, August 8, 2008, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Wallenberg, Joel C. (2009). Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

368

References

Wanner, Dieter (1998). ‘Les subordonnées à double complémentateur en roman médiéval’. In G. Ruffino (ed.), Atti del XXI Congresso Internacionale di Linguistica. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 421–33. Washio, Ryuichi (2004). ‘Auxiliary selection in the East’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 197–256. Watkins, Calvert (1963). ‘Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb’. Celtica 6: 1–49. Wegera, Klaus-Peter et al. Bochumer Mittelhochdeutsch Korpus. http://www.ruhr-unibochum.de/wegera/ Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, and Herzog, Marvin (1968) ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’. In W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 97–195. Weinryb, Beier (1937). ‘A pekl briv in yidish fun 1588, Krake-Prag (A collection of Yiddish letters from 1588, Cracow-Prague)’. In E. Tsherikover (ed.), Historishe shriftn fun yivo (yivo historical papers), volume 2. Vilna: YIVO. Wexler, Ken (1998). ‘Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’. Lingua 106: 23–79. Whitman, John (2008). ‘The classification of constituent order generalizations and diachronic explanation’. In Jeff Good (ed.), Language universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woolford, Ellen (1997). ‘Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227. Woolford, Ellen (2006). ‘Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure’. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–30. Wurmbrand, Susi (2001). In finitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, Susi (2004a). ‘Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement’. In S. Burelle and S. Somesfalean (eds), Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Montreal: Université du Québec, 284–95. Wurmbrand, Susi (2004b). ‘West Germanic verb clusters: The empirical domain’. In K. Kiss and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–85. Yamada, Masahiro (2000). ‘Shugo hyôji ga no seiryoku kakudai no yôso [The expansion of the use of the subject denotor ga: A comparison between the original text of the Tale of Heike and Amakusaban Heike]’. Kokugogaku 51(1): 1–14. Yanagida, Yuko (2005). ‘Ergativity and bare nominals in Early Old Japanese’. Paper presented at Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Yanagida, Yuko (2006). ‘Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–68. Yanagida, Yuko (2007a). ‘Miyagawa’s (1989) exceptions: An ergative analysis’. in Yoichi Miyamoto (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 55. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 265–76. Yanagida, Yuko (2007b). Jôdaigo no nôkakusei ni tsuite [On ergativity in Old Japanese]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun genshô [Main clause phenomena in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo, 147–88.

References

369

Yanagida, Yuko and Whitman, John (2009). ‘Alignment and word order in Old Japanese’. Journal of East Asian linguistics 18: 101–44. Yang, Charles (2000). ‘Internal and external forces in language change’. Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50. Yoon, James H. (1996). ‘Ambiguity of government and the Chain Condition’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 105–62. Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997). Negation and clausal structure. A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella and Bernstein, Judy B. (2009). ‘Micro-comparative syntax in English verbal agreement’. Proceedings of NELS 39. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2004). Sentential negation and Negative Concord. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2008). ‘On the syntactic flexibility of formal features’. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 143–74. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1999). ‘Las funciones informativas: Tema y foco’. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 3. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe, 4215–4244. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985). ‘Clitics and particles’. Language 61(2): 283–305.

This page intentionally left blank

Name index Abels, K. 329 Aboh, E. O. 97, 101, 109 fn 14 Adams, M. 10, 24, 325 Adger, D. 160 fn 5, 280 Agouraki, Y. 37 Ahlqvist, A. 199, 202 Alboiu, G. 267, 268, 272 Aldridge, E. 145 fn 5, 179 Alexiadou, A. 119 fn 5, 150, 152, 158 fn 1, 232 fn 13, 284, 314 fn 5 Ambar, M. 80, 233 fn 17 Anand, P. 178, 179, 182, 191 Anderson, S. R. 134, 177, 180, 300 fn 8 Androutsopoulou, A. 285, 286 Arteaga, D. 290, 293, 301 Avelar, J. 5 Avesani, C. 95 fn 21 Avram, L. 266, 269, 273, 276 Ayoun, D. 56 Bailyn, J. F. 232 fn 13 Baker, M. C. 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 133, 134, 135, 136, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 157, 306, 309, 320, 326, 332, 333 Ball, D. 186 Barbiers, S. 90 Barbosa, P. 82, 232 fn 13 Batllori, M. 22, 23, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 41 Baxter, W. H. 145 fn 5 Bayer, J. 300 Bader, M. 300 Beal, J. C. 160 fn 5 Béjar, S. 243 fn 6 Bell, A. 257 Belletti, A. 27, 129, 132 Bendjaballah, S. 151 Benincà, P. 2, 13, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 36 fn 23, 39, 40, 97, 99, 100, 101, 115

Benveniste, E. 180, 181, 183, 186 Bernini, G. 256 Bernstein, J. B. 11, 15, 158, 159, 165, 166, 170, 171 fn 20, 172, 285, 313, 314 Berwick, R. C. 304, 322, 323, 335, 358 Bickerton, D. 280 Bies, A. 50, 55 Blaszczak, J. 248 Besten, H. 35, 65, 151, 239, 250 Bianchi, V. 86 Biberauer, T. 9, 15, 17, 73, 133, 138, 148, 153, 238, 245, 246, 247 fn 10, 248, 250 fn 14, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 323, 326, 329, 330, 331 fn 4 Bobaljik, J. 138, 143, 149, 158 fn 1, 160, 169, 170 Boeckx, C. 137, 259, 320 Bonnet, M. 287 Börjars, K. 165 Borsley, R. D. 143, 145 Boucher, P. 300 Bowers, J. 90, 184 Boyd, R. 315 Branner, D. P. 145 fn 5 Braudel, F. 315 Breatnach, L. 199 Bresnan, J. 270 Brocardo, M. T. 78 fn 2, 83 Brody, M. 39 Broekhuis, H. 87 fn 10, 88 fn 12 Brucart, J. M. 26 fn 7, 83 fn 6 Bures, A. 170 Bush, R. 62 Butt, M. 184, 185, 329 Bynon, T. 181, 184, 185 Camões, J. 78 fn 2, 85 Campbell, L. 180, 192, 329 Campos, H. 314 fn 5

372

Name index

Cardinaletti, A. 102 fn 7, 109, 114, 119, 125, 228 fn 7, 232 fn 1 Cardona, G. 181 Cardoso, A. 13, 77, 83 fn 5, 90 fn 13, 92 fn 17, 93 fn 20 Carneiro, Z. 7 Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 299 Carston, R. 226 fn 6 Cavalli Sforza, L. 315 Chapman, C. 165 Chomsky, N. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 23, 27 fn 9, 28, 30, 38, 41 fn 27, 119, 129 fn 11, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 148, 153, 157, 198, 199, 203, 238, 243, 253, 257 fn 21, 258, 259, 305, 306, 315, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 333, 334, 335 Chung, S. 177, 186, 199 Cinque, G. 144, 146, 265 fn 1, 266, 268, 274, 276, 278, 283 Clark, R. 304, 332 Collins, C. 184, 327, 330 Colonna, V. 307 Comrie, B. 133, 134, 144, 330 Corblin, F. 248 Corver, N. 206 Costa, J. 86, 87, 88, 89, 92 fn 17, 217, 228, 229, 230, 232, 234, 235 fn 18, 236 Cottell, S. 172 fn 21 Crisma, P. 289, 304, 312, 314 Cruschina, S. 26 fn 5, 34 fn 14, 40 Culicover, P. 77 Cyrino, S. 1, 5, 157 fn 7 D’Alessandro, R. 4 Dahlstrom, A. 187, 188 Davies, W. 237, 270 Déchaîne, R-M. 166 Delfitto D. 290, 293, 294, 308, 313 Demirdache, H. 216, 228, 231, 232 fn 12, 236 Demonte, V. 97 den Dikken, M. 171 fn 18 Deo, A. 329 De Swart, H. 260 fn 23 Den Besten, H. 35, 65, 151, 239, 250

Den Dikken, M. 137, 171 fn 18, 249 fn 13 Devos, M. 231 Diamond, J. 315 Dickson, R. J. 161 fn 6 Diesing, M. 25, 88 Dixon, R. M. W. 186, 187, 188 Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 266, 268, 272, 273, 274 Donaldson, B. 240, 254 Dorleijn, M. 182 fn 4 Dresher, E. 321 Drozd, K. F. 215 Dryer, M. S. 330 Duarte, M. E. 14, 117 fn 1, 118, 120, 121, 122 fn 8, 123, 124 fn 9, 326 Duarte, I. 91 Dubinsky, S. 270 Ducrot, O. 214 Duffield, N. 198 Dummett, M. 214 fn 1 Dupuis, F. 24, 25 Ebert, K. 308 Ebert, R. P. 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 57, 59 Elbourne, P. 248 Ellegärd, A. 174 Embick, D. 142, 230 Emonds, J. 143 Español-Echevarría, M. 285, 286 Estival, D. 180 Fanselow, G. 158 fn 1 Ferreira, J. A. 237 Fernández-Soriano, O. 97 Fontana, J. M. 23, 25, 33, 34, 40 fn 26, 103 Foulet, L. 290, 292, 293, 295, 299, 300 Franchetto B. 192 fn 11 Frîncu, C. 265, 266, 270, 272, 280 Fritzenschaft, A. 71, 72 Fukui, N. 25, 134, 184 Gabriel, C. 26 fn 5 Gallego, A. J. 137, 138, 249 fn 13 Gallmann, P. 301

Name index

373

Galves, C. 1, 5, 7, 119, 129 fn 11 Garrett, A. 185, 221, 329 Gärtner, H-M. 248 Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. 71, 72 Gelderen, E. 286 Giannakidou, A. 238, 241, 242, 243, 245 Gianollo, C. 10, 18, 259, 281, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 312, 313, 314 Gildea, S. 178, 192 fn 11 Giorgi, A. 285, 286, 309 Giurgea, I. 21 fn 1, 39 Givón, T 9, 17, 81, 212 Greenberg, J. H. 54, 133, 141 Grice, H. P. 214 Grimshaw, J. 9, 148, 330 Grohmann, K. K. 137 Grosu, A. 313 Guardiano, C. 10, 19, 259, 283, 285, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 314 fn 5, 315, 316, 318 Guruianu, V. 265

Holmberg A. 2, 6, 20, 119 fn 5, 133, 136, 145, 158, 167, 169, 176 fn 25, 259, 323, 324, 325, 329, 330 Hoop, H. 88 Hopper, P. 254 Horn, L. R. 214, 215, 217, 239, 247 Huang, C.-T. J. 136, 145, 157, 323, 326 Huddlestone, K. 249 fn 14, 264

Hacquard, V. 265 fn 1 Haeberli, E. 66, 76 Haegeman, L. 57, 58 fn 15, 241, 247 fn 6, 248 Haider, H. 22 Haig, G. 181, 182, 184 Hale, K. 209, 210, 211, 329, 331 Hale, M. 331 Hall, J. S. 158 fn 1 Harris, A. C. 180, 192, 329 Harris, M. 325 Haspelmath, M. 134 Heine, B. 197 Henry, A. 160 fn 5, 171 fn 18, 172 fn 21 Herslund, M. 293 Herzog, M. 125 Hill, V. 9, 18, 180, 265, 268 Hinterhölzl, R. 57 fn 14 Hiraiwa, K. 244 fn 6 Hohepa, P. 329 Holm, J. 4, 242 fn 5

Kaiser, G. A. 24, 25 fn 3 Kallulli, D. 32 Kasombo Tshibanda, M. 231 Kato, M. A. 14, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 fn 8, 123, 124 fn 9, 125, 126, 129, 326 Kayne, R. S. 4, 6, 13, 14, 26 fn 7, 61, 73, 77, 78, 82, 86, 90, 93, 122, 124, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 167, 171, 172, 268, 274, 283, 320, 323 Keenan, E. 312 Kikusawa, R. 186 Kiparsky, P. 260 Kiss, K. 153 Kiss, T. 82 Klavans, J. L. 142 Klimov, G. A. 187, 192 Koch, J. 203 Koopman, H. 25 Koster, J. 77, 92, 93 fn 18 Kratzer, A. 154, 165 fn 13, 268 Kroch, A. S. 1, 7, 8, 12, 54, 55, 58 fn 16, 60, 61, 63, 65, 72, 174

Iatridou, S. 72 Ingham, R. 159 fn 4, 291 fn 3 Iordan, I. 269, 277 Irimia, M. 275 Jelinek, E. 324, 325 Jespersen, O. 251, 253, 256, 263, 299 Johannessen, J. 93 Johnson, K. 169 Jonas, D. 158 fn 1, 160, 168 fn 17, 170 Julien, M. 136, 146, 326 fn 1, 329

374

Name index

Kurath, H. 172 Kuroda, S-Y. 25, 91, 92 Kuteva, T. 197 Labelle, M. 25 Labov, W. 125 Ladusaw, W. 243 Laka, I. 224, 241, 242 fn 4 Lambert, P. J. 55 Lash, E. 9, 16, 17, 196, 203 fn 9 Layton, B. 140 Ledgeway, A. 25, 97, 100 fn 5, 102 Lee, S-Y. 90 Legate, J. 179, 180, 188, 191 Lehmann, W. 44, 54 Lema, J. 34 fn 16, 65 fn 2 Lemieux, M. 25 Liberman, M. 241 Lightfoot, D. 8, 78, 95, 259, 281, 304, 311, 315, 321 Lindauer, T. 301 Lohndal, T. 244 fn 6 Longobardi, G. 10, 19, 197, 259, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 295, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 316, 318 Lopes Rossi, M. A. 118, 121 fn 6 Loprieno, A. 140 Lötscher, A. 53 Lyons, C. 300 Macchi, G. 78 fn 2, 84 Manolessou, I. 283 Mareş, A. 265, 272 Martins, A. M. 9, 17, 78, 83, 84, 85, 91, 95, 103, 104, 106, 120, 214, 217, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233 fn 16, 235 fn 18, 236 Marušič, F. L. 152 Mascarenhas, S. 97, 112 Massam, D. 153, 331 Matras, Y. 182 Matthews, W. K. 180 Mattos e Silva, R. V. 84

McCafferty, K. 160 fn 5, 161 McCloskey, James 147, 209, 210, 211 McCloskey, Jim 198 McCone, K. 199 Meillet, A. 8 Meng, M. 300 Mensching, G. 2, 11, 21, 22 fn 2, 23, 26 fn 5, 27, 30 fn 12, 31 fn 13, 38, 39, 40 Meurman-Solin, A. 164, 174 Milsark, G. 13, 79 Mithun, M. 187, 188 Mišeska-Tomić, O. 268 fn 3 Miyagawa, S. 39, 190 fn 9 Mobbs, I. 334 Molinelli, P. 287 Montgomery, M. 158 fn 1, 159, 160 fn 5, 161, 162, 163, 164, 172, 174 fn 23, 175 fn 24 Mosteller, F. 62 Motapanyane, V. 273 Motohashi, T. 190 Müller, G. 34 fn 14, 35 Munn, A. 93 Murray, J. A. H. 158 fn 1, 160, 162, 163 Muysken, P. 142 Myhill, J. 180 Negrão, E. 117, 326 Nevins, A. 178, 179, 182, 191 Newmeyer, F. 2, 320, 322, 333 Newton, G. 199 fn 3, 323 Nichols, J. 329 Nikitina, T. 323 Niyogi, P. 304 Noyer, R. 230 Nunes, I. 78 fn 2, 83 Nunes, J. 104 fn 11, 118, 119, 228 fn 7 Nuñez Cedeño, R. 118 Ó hUiginn, R. 199, 200 Obenauer, H-G. 236 Olarrea A. 14, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132 Olsvanger, I. 66, 67 Ordoñez, F. 14, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132

Name index

Pagotto, E. 7 Palm, L. 293, 294, 299 Panaitescu, P. 269, 277 Pantoja Rivero, J. C. 40 fn 26 Paoli, S. 97, 114 Paradisi, P. 290, 293, 294, 313 Patrick, P. 242 fn 5 Payne, J. 183 fn 4 Penner, Z. 71, 72, 73, 74 Pesetsky, D. 149, 151 Piel, J. 78 fn 2, 83 Pietsch, L. 160 fn 5 Pintzuk, S. 63, 65, 66, 76 Pîrvulescu, M. 267, 268 Plank, F. 291, 299 Platzack, C. 158, 167, 169, 176 fn 25 Poletto, C. 2, 13, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 fn 11, 32, 34 fn 18, 37, 39, 97, 100 fn 5, 101, 115, 236 Pollock, J-Y. 122, 124, 129, 132, 143, 147 Polotsky, H. J. 142 Pomino, N. 23, 30 Ponelis, F. 239 Poole, G. 25 Postal, P. 171 Postma, G. 7 Prell, H-P. 46, 50 Pulleyblank, E. G. 145 fn 5 Rackowski, A. 249 fn 13 Radford, A. 32 Ramat, P. 256 Raposo, E. 80 Remberger, E-M. 21 fn 1, 26 fn 5, 38, 39, 40 Reenen, P. 291, 299 Reinhart, T. 89 Reintges, C. H. 14, 133, 139 fn 2, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148 fn 6, 149, 151, 152, 154, 157 fn 7 Renfrew, C. 305 Rezac, M. 243 fn 6 Ribeiro, I. 2, 13, 21, 97, 99, 100, 101 fn 6, 102, 103 fn 8, 106, 124 fn 9 Richards, M. D. 133, 137 fn 1, 248 fn 13 Richards, N. 133, 137 fn 1, 249 fn 13

375

Rigon, G. 306 Ritter, E. 165, 231 fn 10, 295 Rivero, M. L. 34 fn 16 Rizzi, L. 2, 13, 25, 26 fn 5, 27, 28 fn 10, 37, 82 fn 4, 92, 97, 103 fn 10, 115, 118, 124, 144, 268 Roberge, P. 239, 255, 256 Roberge, Y. 272 Roberts, I. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25 fn 3, 73, 97, 98, 100, 103 fn 10, 109 fn 14, 117, 118, 119, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 143 fn 4, 145, 148, 153, 163 fn 11, 165, 172, 175 fn 24, 197, 198, 204, 207, 208 fn 12, 211, 212, 213, 228 fn 7, 232, 233, 235, 259, 260 fn 22, 265, 268, 281, 282, 286, 288, 300 fn 8, 301, 302, 304, 306, 320, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331 fn 4, 332, 335 Robinson, P. 160 fn 5 Rochemont, M. 77 Rohlfs, G. 267 Rosén, H. 287 Rosengren, I. 22 Roussou, A. 8, 9, 16, 18, 133, 197, 198, 204, 207, 208 fn 12, 211, 212, 213, 228 fn 7, 232, 233, 235, 265, 268, 286, 301, 332 Rouveret, A. 145 Sagart, L. 145 fn 5 Sag, I. 241 Saito, M. 324 Salvi, G. 99, 100 fn 5, 101 fn 6 Sankoff, D. 45 Santorini, B. 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 255 Sapir, E. 3, 10, 180, 281, 326 Sapp, C. D. 3, 7, 11, 12, 43, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 55 fn 9, 57 fn 13 Sarmento, S. 266 Sauerland, U. 248 fn 12 Savelsberg F. 21 fn 1, 22 fn 2, 31 fn 13 Schlegel, A. 326 Schleicher, A. 326 Schneider, E. W. 172 Schroten, J. 308 Schøsler, L. 291, 293, 299

376

Name index

Schumacher, S. 200 fn 4 Sheehan, M. 323 Shlonsky, U. 283, 284 Sigurðsson, H. A. 170 Siloni, T. 295 Silverstein, M. 185, 187, 188 Sitaridou, I. 34 fn 14, 40 Smith, J. 160, 280 Speas, M. 25, 129 fn 11, 184 Spencer, A. 134, 142 Sportiche, D. 25, 36, 298 Sproat, R. 142 fn 4 Starke, M. 119, 125, 228 fn 7 Stavrou, M. 314 fn 5 Strunk, J. 81 Takano, Y. 87 fn 10, 90 Tanaka, T. 173 Taylor, A. 12, 54, 55, 58 fn 16, 65, 66 Thiersch, C. 35 Thráinsson, H. 160, 169 Thurneysen, R. 201 fn 7, 202, 207 Togeby, K. 294 Toribio, A. J. 14, 117, 118, 119 Torrego, E. 149, 151 Torres Morais, M. A. 13, 97, 103 fn 9 Tortora, C. 158 fn 2, 171 fn 18 Traugott, E. 254 Ura, H. 30, 244 fn 6 Uriagereka, J. 6, 7, 8, 12, 56, 57, 128 Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 216, 228, 231, 232 fn 12, 236 Väänänen, V. 287 van der Auwera, J. 231 van Kemenade, A. 323

Vance, B. 325 Vayra, M. 21 Vikner, S. 170, 326 Vincent, N. 287, 300, 313 De Vries, M. 77, 78, 81, 82, 86, 92, 93 Waddington, C. H. 321 Wallenberg, J. C. 3, 12, 60, 66, 73, 74 Wanner, D. 109 Washio, R. 191 Watkins, C. 203 Webelhuth G. 35 Wegera, K-P. 45 Weinreich, U. 125 Weinryb, B. 66 Wexler, K. 332 Whitman, J. 3, 16, 177, 178, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 fn 11 Wilder, C. 284 Wiltschko, M. 166, 231 fn 10 Woolford, E. 179 Wurmbrand, S. 53, 57, 68, 138, 149, 274 Yamada, M. 193 Yanagida, Y. 2, 16, 177, 178, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 fn 11 Yang, C. 3, 12, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 73, 76 Yoon, J. H. 184 Zanuttini, R. 11, 15, 158, 159, 170, 171 fn 20, 172, 248, 249 fn 13 Zeijlstra, H. 9, 17, 238, 242, 243, 243 fn 6, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 252, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262 Zubizarreta, M-L. 26 fn 5 Zwicky, A. M. 142

Subject index A’-position 25 acquisition 7–8, 12, 13, 25 fn 3, 60–62, 70–73, 76, 246, 250, 253, 257–62, 264, 288, 299 fn 8, 305, 314, 321, 324 device 321 principle 260, 304 process 56, 64 strategy 260–1, 313, 333–4 see also language acquisition address forms 118 adjacency 77, 143, 164, 224, 230, 283, 285, 295, 297 condition 26 fn 5 effects 167 merger under adjacency 224, 230 non-adjacency 301 requirement 288, 296–7 strict adjacency 230, 297, 300, 302 adjective 47, 86, 90, 276, 283–5, 287–9, 294–301, 312–13 attributive adjectives 313 cardinal adjectives 316 possessive adjectives 294, 299, 300 predicative adjective position 314 fn 5 adnominal argument 19, 282–83, 286, 290–91, 293 fn 5 affixes 119, 140, 142, 146, 155 Afrikaans 17–18, 238–43, 245–64 agglutinative 15, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 142, 146, 148, 149, 155, 166, 157 fn 7, 326 agree relation 16, 144, 145, 148, 153, 178–180, 191, 199, 209, 260 fn 22 agreement 5, 18, 102 fn 7, 118–19, 138–9, 154, 158–9, 161, 167, 177, 180, 182–3, 204, 209–12, 268, 295–300, 301 absence of agreement 158, 171 fn 18 affixes 119 features 207

inflection 118, 150 marking 324–5, 327 morphology 143, 325 paradigm 118 projection 299 nominative agreement system 137 past-participle agreement 330 fn 2 person agreement 167, 203, 330 possessor agreement 324 prepositional agreement 16, 209–10, 212 pronominal agreement 14, 119, 127, 325 object agreement 324, 333 rich agreement 139, 150, 172 subject-verb agreement 139, 161 verbal agreement 160–1, 163, 166, 172 preverbal agreement markers 335 see also agreement parameter see also impoverishment see also WH-agreement alignment 16, 20, 177–8, 179–80, 181, 183, 185, 186–8, 190, 191, 192, 194, 327–30, 331 fn4, 332–3, 334 Alsatian 53 analyticity 14, 136, 142, 145, 157 parameter 15 analytic system 145–6, 152–6 analyticization 134, 136, 138, 142, 146 Anti-Babelic Principle 310 argument 7, 15, 17, 18, 50, 73, 99, 100, 101, 128, 129, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 206, 231, 232, 273, 275, 279, 282, 285, 287, 291, 294, 296, 298, 299, 307, 308, 324, 325, 329, 328, 332, 333, 334 adnominal arguments 19, 282, 283, 286, 290, 291, 293 crowding 146, 150, 151, 156 ergative arguments 182

378

Subject index

argument (cont.) external argument 16, 119, 128, 130, 177, 178, 179 fn 1, 180 fn 2, 181, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 231, 327, 327 genitive argument 287, 308 null arguments 20, 324, 326, 332, 333, 334 pronominal arguments 324, 325, 332, 333 voiding 152, 154, 155, 156 Arabic 306 fn 2, 308 aspect 15, 138, 139–42, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 191, 231 fn 10, 268, 328, 331 Phrase (AspP) 27, 145, 151, 155 projection 151 Austria 53 auxiliary 15, 18, 22, 42, 53, 54, 67, 69, 74, 124 fn9, 131, 139, fn3, 141, 142, 143, 175, 176, 183, 185, 194, 272, 273, 275, 278, 279 selection 131 Bantu languages 236, 333 Bavarian 53 Basque 56, 306 fn 2, 308, 329 Borer-Chomsky (Conjecture) 3, 134, 135, 157 Bulgarian 306 fn 2 case cas régime absolu 19, 282, 290, 291, 292, 293 fn 4, 294, 295, 297, 300, 301, 302 genitive case 18, 19, 177, 181, 182, 184, 187, 189, 192, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285–302, 308, 313 marking 177, 185, 188, 189, 200, 206, 208, 299, 313, 331 Catalan 82 See also Old Catalan Celtic 321, 323, 326, 331 chain-effect 10, 19, 281, 282, 301 Chinese 323, 324, 326 Archaic Chinese 145 Classical Chinese 145 Mandarin Chinese 136, 138

Medieval Chinese 145 see also Old Chinese Chuckchi 330 clause clause-typing 129, 130 comparative clause 196, 198–9, 202, 206, 208, 212 subcomparative 206 relative clause 13, 43, 55 fn 9, 72, 162, 202, 204, 285, 308 reduced relative clause 283 restrictive relative clause 77, 86, 90, 93, 94 subordinate clause 11, 24, 43, 45, 50, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71–2, 74, 86, 97, 115, 146–7, 152, 187, 188–9, 193 clitic 8, 11, 22, 36, 37–8, 40, 42 fn 27, 85 fn 8, 99, 101, 102 fn 8, 104, 105, 119, 139, 142, 147, 164, 165 fn 12, 166, 173 fn 22, 203, 205, 272, 273, 276, 278, 325, 333 Clitic Phrase 37 Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) 11, 22, 26, 36, 101, 128, 141 cliticize/cliticization 142, 161, 164, 165, 203, 205, 206–7, 212, 293 fn 5, 308 enclisis/enclitic 139 fn 2, 141, 142, 205, 208, 212, 309, 316 non-clitic 274 placement 7, 230 fn 9 proclisis/proclitic 85 fn 8, 99, 101, 201 fn 6 resumptive clitic 99 fn 4, 101 subject clitics 14, 119, 176 competing grammars 68, 73, 75 consonant mutation 198, 199, 205 copula 139 fn 3, 181 fn 3, 194, 196, 203–5, 207–10, 212 fn 14 copular verb 150 core functional categories (CFCs) 23, 29, 37, 39 core grammar 7, 117, 307

Subject index

CP contrastive CP 28 domain 40, 236 exploded CP 124 field 233, 236, 279 informational CP 28 layer/layered CP 13, 97, 115, 270, 272 recursion 40, 69, 71, 72 split CP 25, 28, 92, 98, 102, 105 Czech 242–6, 258 Daco-Romance 313 Danish 167 definiteness 308–9, 312 agreement 296 effect 78–9, 81, 83, 90, 93 feature 295, 313 inducing elements 294 inheritance 295 requirement 294, 294 deictic DP 99 locatives 214–16, 222, 228–30, 233, 235–6 see also utterance-anchored locatives deflexion 19, 282, 299, 302 determiner phrase (DP) complex DP 128 extended DP 330 internal structure 19, 306 diachronic implementation 125 theory 281, 304, 305 dialect 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 45, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 104 fn 8, 133, 174 conservative dialects 65, 174 contemporary dialects 12, 43, 53, 56 of German 53 individual dialects 53 modern dialects 1, 3, 7, 44, 145 see also Munster dialect, Italian dialects, German dialects, Dutch dialects, Carribean dialects of Spanish, dialectal 4, 5, 11, 51

379

doubling determiner doubling 284 negative doubling 260 PP 230 que 13–14, 97, 98–99, 104, 109, 110–12, 114, 115, 116 subject doubling 120, 127 Dravidian 321, 332 drift 10, 145, 281 Dutch 18, 43, 45, 54, 58, 61, 67, 68, 81, 82 fn 4, 87 fn 10, 88 fn 12, 92 fn 17, 93, 239, 240–41, 245, 255, 260, 321 dialects 58 fn 15 Egyptian Ancient/Old Egyptian 1, 14–15, 133–4, 138, 139–41, 145–51, 156 Coptic 1, 14–15, 138, 139–42, 144–5, 152–7 Middle Egyptian 139 fn 2 emphatic markers 17, 216–17, 222 fn 4, 228, 232–3, 235, 235–6 empty category 119 English Appalachian English 15–6, 158–61, 166, 168, 170–76 Belfast English 160 fn 5 Buckie English 160 fn 5 Middle English 58 fn 16, 65, 159 fn 4, 161 Northern Irish English 160 fn 5 Southern Irish English 160 fn 5 Standard 15–16, 158, 159, 161, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176 Tyneside English 160 fn 5 see also Old English EPP 119, 156 anti-EPP feature 184–85 feature 11, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 35–9, 41 fn 27, 42, 178–81, 183–4, 186, 191–2, 327, 334 equidistance 30, 38 equi distance Principle 32 exaptation 209, 210 expletives 39 fn 25, 173, 330 see also transitive expletives

380

Subject index

extraposition 13, 50, 53–5, 58, 66, 68 RRC extraposition 77–87, 89–96 feature phonological features 259 semantic features 259, 260, 276 formal features 6, 20, 134–5, 157, 197, 246, 253, 259–60, 300, 320–22, 324, 326, 334 (un)interpretable features 156, 243, 244 fn 6 Phi-features 15, 39, 119 see also EPP feature Fin 13, 15, 98–113, 115, 144, 268, 275 Fin-to-Force 98, 104, 112, 115 V-to-Fin 14, 99–107, 110, 114–15 see also Spec of Fin Finnish 306 fn 2 fitness 62, 64, 65, 70, 75 focus 2, 12, 13, 14, 34, 36, 39, 44, 45, 48–51, 53, 57, 82, 89, 92, 97–9, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 112, 115, 147, 148 fn 6, 154, 249 contrastive focus 26, 29, 48, 92, 100 domain 92, 249, 261 driven 249 feature 101, 156 field 26, 97–8, 100, 106, 109 activated FocusP field 101 focused 12, 26, 28, 29, 45, 48–50, 55, 58, 85, 95, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 148, 240, 247, 248, 249, 251, 261 unfocused 92 focus P/ Phrase 13, 98, 100, 102, 104–6, 108, 154, 248 fronting 22, 24, 26, 34, 39, 40, 240 head 99, 101, 105–06, 109, 113 information(al) focus 26, 29, 48, 98, 105, 127, 128 marker 139, 222 fn 4 movement 40, 42, 110 position 28 preposed focus 80, 82, 84 scrambling 92 fn 17

Force 13, 14, 26, 98, 103, 108, 115, 124, 137, 268–9, 275, 278 ForceP 98, 104–15, 129–31, 268–9, 276–8 see also Fin-to-Force French 19, 26 fn 7, 82, 119, 124, 143, 172, 291, 294, 297, 298, 311, 312, 314, 317, 325 Colloquial French 325 Middle French 19, 282, 289–90, 291 fn 3, 297, 301 See also Old French functional 130, 138, 207, 276 category 2–3, 6, 9, 16, 20, 23, 27, 38, 92, 133–6, 157, 320, 322, 330 see also Core Functional Category (CFC) domain 273 element 153, 207, 232 feature 274 field 274 head 5, 15–16, 95, 97, 138, 139 fn 2, 144–5, 149, 153, 161, 170, 173–7, 180, 197, 224, 266, 269, 278, 320, 331, 334 hierarchy 232 item 131, 133 layer 289, 297, 300 modal 267, 274–5 morpheme 136, 141 particle 154 position 216, 313 preposition 300 (maximal) projection 18, 37, 101, 115, 144, 147, 152, 153, 169–70, 175–6, 178, 200, 233, 268, 271–2, 274, 279, 283, 285, 289, 300, 301 superstructure 147, 151, 154 system 17, 228, 232, 233, 235 verb 79 Gallo-Italian 312 German 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 24, 25 fn 3, 34, 35, 43, 44, 49, 52–9, 60–1, 65, 67, 71–3, 75–6, 81, 87 fn 10, 88 fn 12, 124 fn 9, 245, 300, 306, 321 dialects of 53

Subject index

Continental West Germanic 57, 58, 59 Early New High German (ENHG) 46 Medieval German 54 Middle High German (MHG) 7, 11, 43, 45 Swiss German 53, 54, 57, 68, 72, 73, 75 Bernese Swiss German 71 Zurich German 53, 58 Gothic 312 gradual change 130 grammaticalization 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 24, 41, 118, 133, 196–8, 203–5, 207–8, 212–13, 232–3, 235, 265–9, 272, 275–9, 291, 301–2, 308–9 Greek 4, 37, 204, 208 fn 12, 245, 284, 286, 306, 308, 310, 311, 313, 314 fn 5, 323 Classical Greek 37, 283, 284, 310 New Testament Greek Koiné 310 Grico 306 fn. 2 GroundP 124–5, 129–31 heavy NP shift 54, 68 Hebrew 65, 306 fn. 2 hierarchy adverb hierarchy 274 alignment hierarchy 328 cartographic hierarchy 268 Cinque’s hierarchy 268 functional hierarchy 232 NP/nominal hierarchy 185, 187–9, 192 null-argument hierarchy 326 thematic hierarchy 283–5, 287 see also parameter hierarchy Hindi 178–80, 182, 185, 191, 306 fn 2, 329 historical linguistics 10, 311 modern historical linguistics 10 quantitative historical linguistics 306 Hungarian 306 fn 2 Ibero-Romance 21 fn 1, 22 fn 2, 24, 34, 313 impoverishment 14, 19, 118–19, 282, 299 fn 8, 301, 324 incorporation 14, 119, 326, 335 Indic 184–5

381

Indo-European 4, 5, 285, 323, 325, 326, 331 Indo-Iranian 1, 16, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183–4, 328–30, 331 infinitive 18, 34, 45–6, 139 fn 3, 265–8, 270, 272–5, 277, 279 causative infinitive 139 fn 3 fronting 34 modal-infinitive 53, 58–9, 266 restructuring infinitives 230 fn 9 inflection 135, 137, 268, 276, 278, 326, 331 fn 4 agreement inflection 118, 150 person/number inflection 196 tense inflection 15, 138–9, 142, 148–9, 154 verbal inflection 14, 119, 326 inflectional 144, 275–6, 282, 284, 285, 290–91, 293–4, 301–2 affixes 142, 146 categories 140, 153 change 138 domain 143 fn 4, 156, 174–6 endings 14, 118, 300 features 153, 278–9 field 272–3, 276–7 genitive 19, 282, 287, 291 fn 3, 292, 294, 297, 302 heads 155 morphemes 141 paradigm 119 projection 125 system 15, 16, 175, 134, 160, 174–5, 287 information structure 14, 36, 39, 49, 56, 91, 152, 268 input generalization 320, 333 interface 2, 9, 56–7, 135, 136, 137, 265, 322 (internal) reconstruction 10, 145, 186, 196, 198, 289, 301 inversion 28, 56, 57, 94, 118, 122 fn 8, 123, 234 Romance inversion 118 stylistic inversion 122, 124–5, 129, 132 Iranian 177–8, 180, 181–6, 194 Middle Iranian 181–3 see also Old Iranian

382

Subject index

Irish 9, 16, 17, 147, 196–212, 306 fn 2 Middle Irish 200, 210, 211, 306 Northern Irish 160 fn 5 Southern Irish 160 fn 5 see also Old Irish Italian 4, 19, 26, 82, 98, 165 fn 12, 243, 244, 245, 246, 249, 257, 258, 306, 308, 310, 311, 313, 314 dialects 4, 114, 310, 313 Northwestern 114 see also Ligurian, Turinese Medieval Italian 28, 29 see also Gallo-Italian see also Old Italian Italo-Romance 25 Japanese 16, 129, 178, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 195, 321, 324, 329, 331, 333 Middle Japanese 188, 192, 193, 194 Pre-modern Japanese 177, 178 see also Old Japanese Jespersen’s Cycle 251, 253, 256, 263 Sub-Jespersen’s cycle 251 Korean 184, 185, 321, 332 KP 300 Kurmanji 178, 182 language acquisition 1, 9, 25 fn 3, 59, 60, 76, 78, 95, 259, 282, 299, 302, 305, 315, 321, 322, 332 Latin 1, 18, 19, 206, 266, 275, 283, 286, 293 fn 5, 296, 307, 310–15, 329 Classical Latin 283, 286, 288, 310, 314 Late Latin 18, 282, 286, 287, 288, 296, 299, 301, 302, 313, 314 Vulgar Latin 42, 275, 279, 281, 282 laws of history 304, 315 left periphery 13, 22, 23, 26, 27, 37, 86, 92, 97, 98, 104, 110, 115, 116, 136, 153, 156, 216 low left periphery 28 phenomena 2 see also Low vP periphery

lexicon 23, 38, 135, 142, 265, 305 substantive 131 Lezgian 329 Ligurian 114 linearization 61, 320, 323, 334 low vP periphery 14, 129, 131, 132 macro-parameter 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 20, 133, 134, 135, 136, 144, 157, 320, 321, 322, 323, 331, 334 Marathi 329 markedness 10, 136, 197, 261, 334 merge 6, 13, 16, 20, 23, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 fn 11, 106, 107, 108, 111, 145, 147, 150, 173, 197, 198, 204–5, 212, 232, 233, 268, 275, 276, 283, 300, 322, 323, 335 external merge 98, 228, 232 internal merge 98 merge-over-move 301 metaparameter 157 micro-parameter 3–6, 14, 20, 43, 44, 56, 133–36, 320, 321, 322, 325 Mirror Principle 149 modal 15, 18, 45–6, 53, 58, 138, 144, 175, 176, 225, 265–77 auxiliary 18, 272, 279 bem 234 features 138 infinitive 53, 58–9 particle 146 projection 144, 154 semantics 18, 266 verbs 34, 35 fn 18, 53, 58 movement A’-movement 86 head-movement 3, 23, 34, 136, 141, 146, 149, 230, 274, 326 operator movement 40, 41 fn 27 PF movement 57 verb-movement 7, 14, 15, 26, 30, 65, 71, 98, 136, 138, 142–7, 155–6, 170, 174–5, 233 fn 15, 272, 274 remnant verb-movement 152

Subject index

verb-to-tense (V-to-T) movement 138, 143, 150, 198, 230, 326 remnant movement 23, 34, 40, 91 fn 14 see also focus movement Munster dialect 212 fn 15 negation 17–18, 65–67, 71–72, 104, 146–8, 152, 155, 214–37, 238–64 metalinguistic negation 17, 214–64 semantic negation 238–64 sentential negation 65, 240, 243, 249, 254, 261 constituent negation 240, 241, 251, 244 negative concord 18, 238, 242, 263, 264 Niger-Congo 5 Norwegian 306 fn 2 noun raising 302, 297 null arguments 20, 324, 326, 332–334 null operator 102, 107, 119 null subjects 14, 112, 117–19, 121, 124, 138, 139 fn 2, 181, 182 fn 4, 203, 325, 333 non-null subject 324–5 see also pro-drop numeration 119, 129, 148, 272 object shift 22, 148, 154, 155, 167, 168, 169, 327 Old Catalan 22 fn 2 Old Chinese 145 fn 5 Old Egyptian 1, 139–157 Old English 76 Old French 19, 281–303, 313 Old Japanese 16, 177–95 Old Iranian 180, 182, 183 Old Irish 9, 16, 196–213 Old Italian 23, 26, 28, 29 Old Persian 181 Old Portuguese 13, 14, 98–116, 228 fn 7, 233 Old Romance 2, 11, 21, 23–31, 33, 35–42 Older Scots 15, 159–76 Old Spanish 22, 26, 34, 36, 40 paradigm 14, 118, 119, 138, 139, 161, 162, 163, 165, 179, 201, 275, 292, 332 parameter 1–20

383

agreement parameter 5 case parameter 6 core parameter 56 directionality parameter 5 hierarchy 8, 56, 136, 321–5 lexical parameter 23, 38, 39 NS parameter 323 order parameter 12, 56, 44, 55–59 PF parameter 323 Polysynthesis parameter 5, 6 see also polysynthesis syntactic parameter 133, 134, 136, 315, 332 UG parameter 311, 312, 315 see also macro-parameter, micro-parameter participle 11, 16, 22, 23, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 f n 20, 40, 46, 149, 180, 183, 185, 186, 194, 266 fn 2, 275, 330 fronting 23, 33–35, 40 particles 9, 15, 16, 46, 54, 55, 65, 66, 67, 109, 138–56, 185, 189, 196, 198, 199, 201 fn 6, 203, 205, 209, 213 passive 3, 16, 27, 32, 33, 45, 46, 137, 140, 145 fn 5, 147, 152, 177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 194, 271, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 perfect 43, 45, 46, 53, 58, 59, 62, 139, 140, 141, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 268, 274 periphery 14, 129, 130, 131, 132 core/periphery 7, 8, 12, 44, 56, 57, 59 sentence periphery 2, 13, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 37, 42, 86, 92, 97, 98, 102 fn 8, 103, 110, 111, 115, 116, 136, 153, 156, 216 high sentence periphery 126, 128, 131 refined sentence periphery 129, 130, 132 Persian 181 Middle Persion 181, 183 see also Old Persian person 14, 15, 16, 117, 118, 121, 125, 128, 131, 139 fn 2, 158–6, 181, 182, 183, 188, 189, 196, 198, 201, 203, 208, 210, 231, 276, 278, 312, 316, 322, 330 PF 16, 30 fn 12, 57, 134, 137, 199, 205, 207, 212, 248, 322, 335

384

Subject index

Phase 28, 31, 38, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 146, 148, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 191, 248, 249 fn 13, 251, 327 Theory 31, 152 Picard 291 fn 3 polysynthesis 3, 5–6, 133–4, 136, 326–7, 332–3 Portuguese 5, 8, 13, 14, 42, 77–96, 97, 98, 109, 115, 116, 124 fn 9, 215, 228 fn 7, 230, 242, 145 Brazilian Portuguese 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 98, 109, 112, 117–32, 157 fn 7, 325 European Portuguese 4, 8, 13, 17, 77, 112, 215, 216, 217–37, 242 Pragmaticization 232, 235 Prefix 45, 46, 47, 65, 140, 145 fn 5, 242 fn 4, 333 prescriptive grammar 240 fn 3 presupposition 88, 89, 130, 214, 217, 247 Primary Linguistic Data 8, 9, 95, 178, 248, 258, 320, 321, 332 pro 119, 183 fn 4, 209, 211 PRO 181 Probe 6, 23, 31, 38, 39, 137 fn 1, 138, 148, 150, 154, 155, 156, 243, 248 fn 11, 274, 230, 324, 326, 327, 328, 329, 334 pro-drop 332, 324, 325, 333 progressive 46 pronoun 14, 15, 47, 48, 54, 55, 69 fn 5, 72, 104, 108, 112, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 139 fn 2, 148, 158 fn 2, 159 fn 3, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 173 fn 22, 181, 182, 183, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 209, 231, 236 fn 19, 276, 294, 301, 324, 325, 332, 333 free weak pronouns 14, 119, 126, 127 relative pronouns 86, 163 strong pronouns 14, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131 weak pronouns 14, 71, 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 167, 168 prosody 12, 44, 49, 53, 56, 57

reanalysis 42, 58, 59, 60, 177, 178, 180, 183, 185, 186, 193, 194, 202, 204, 205, 206, 209, 253, 256, 262, 286, 289, 296, 300, 301 morphological reanalysis 209 syntactic reanalysis 196, 197 upward(s) reanalysis 197, 204, 208, 212, 232 register - 44, 56, 279 Rhaeto-Romance 25 fn 3 rhetorical questions 216, 225, 226, 228, 233, 235 Romance 1, 4, 18, 19, 22, 24, 37, 39 fn 24, 131, 138, 165 fn 12, 281–2, 289, 295, 300, 307, 310–5, 321, 323, 325, 326, 330 medieval/medieval stages of 11, 21, 23–4, 37, 39, 99–101, 301 Modern Romance 11, 19, 22, 26, 29, 30, 38, 39, 42 fn 27, 282, 310, 315 Proto-Romance 42, 312, 313 Western Romance 19 see also Daco-Romance, Ibero-Romance, Italo-Romance, Old Romance, Rhaeto-Romance see also Romance inversion Rumantsch 25 fn 3 Russian 306 fn 2, 307, 329 Salentino 306 fn 2 Sanskrit 181, 185, 331 Sardinian 26 fn 5 Scots Ulster Scots 160 fn 5 see also Older Scots scrambling 35, 36, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 230 IP-scrambling 95, 78, 85, 95, 236 medial scrambling 95 middle scrambling 217, 228, 229, 230, 233, 236 short (distance) scrambling (SDS) 22, 86, 89, 90, 95 interpolation/scrambling 104, 105 Semitic 295, 308, 313, 331 fn 4 Ethiopian Semitic 323 Serbo-Croatian 245, 306 fn 2 Sicilian 26

Subject index

Sinhalese 309 small clause 26 smuggling 327 sociolinguistic 4, 7, 11, 45, 51, 56, 59 Spanish 22, 26, 40, 82, 83, 125, 215, 245, 306, 313, 317 Caribbean Spanish 117, 118, 120, 122, 124–6, 128, 130, 132 General Spanish 117, 124 Modern Spanish 26, 36 See also Old Spanish Spec/specifier of AgrOP 88, 93 of CP 24, 91, 199, 207 of Clitic Phrase 37 of D 128 of Fin/FinP 99–102, 104, 106–11 of Focus/ FocP 99–102, 104, 109 of FP 170 of INFL/IP-T/TP 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38–40, 73, 74, 93–5, 119, 126, 131, 148, 170, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 216, 227, 228–33, 236, 327, 328, 330 of MoodP 154, 155 of SigmaP 234 of VP 87, 88, 89, 128, 132, 151 of v/vP 23, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 178, 179, 180, 183, 191, 274, 327, 328 of *vP 148 of VoiceP 328 position 23, 31, 32, 37, 85, 95, 144, 154, 155, 230 vs. adjunct position 92 vs. complement 143 stress 49, 50 focal stress 247 nuclear stress 89 sentential stress 53 stressed vs. unstressed prefix 46, 47 stressed vs. unstressed word 48, 50 stressed, unstressed, non-stressed items 203 subcomparative 206–8

385

subject doubling 120 postposed subject 121, 122, 125, 127 raising 154, 182, 327 preposed subject 127, 130 referential null subject 117, 118, 125 subject-in-Situ generalization 150 VP internal subject 25, 184 Subset Principle 259 Swabian 53, 72 Swedish 158, 167, 176 fn 25, 245 Swiss 25, 53, 58, 72 Bernese Swiss 72 synchronic variation 44, 125, 157 synthesis 145, 157 Tense features 137, 148, 149, 150 markers 148, 149, 165 position 60, 61, 64–76 Third Factor 6, 9, 10, 257, 258, 260–63, 322, 333–5 topicalization 26, 35, 36, 38, 81, 82, 85 transitive expletives 15, 158–9, 167–70, 172–3, 175 Turinese 114 typology 133, 135, 141, 143, 144, 238, 242, 243, 245, 249, 283, 326 Universal Grammar (UG) 3, 9, 244 fn 8, 320 utterance time (UT-T) 17, 216, 228, 231, 236 utterance-anchored locatives 228, 229, 231, 233 verb projection raising (VPR) 12, 43–4, 58 fn 15, 59, 68, 71–6 verb raising 15, 43, 57, 143, 146, 153, 156, 167–70, 172–4 verbal complex (VC) 11, 12, 43–6, 48 fn 5, 50, 53, 55 fn 9, 56, 57 fn 14 verb-second 24, 45, 145, 151–69 Walloon 313 Welsh 306 fn 2

386

Subject index

West Flemish 68, 241, 256 fn 17 WH agreement 199 constituent 80, 82, 84, 91, 92 clause 14, 199 complementizer 199 construction 198, 201 fn 6, 202 dependency 198 element 129, 130 form 201, 209 movement 42 nasalizing wh-construction 204 operator 129, 205 phrase 7, 190, 225, 249 fn 13 question 14, 118, 120, 124, 126, 127, 132 wh-induced consonant mutation 203 fn 9, 205 wh-nasalization 209 fn 13 Wolof 306 fn 2, 308 word order mid sentence position 126 OV 12, 54, 58, 331, 333 parameter 44, 55–59 grammar 63 language 330

pattern 331 sentence final position 122, 126–7, 246 SOV 12, 54, 58, 192, 329–31 SVO 12, 15, 39 fn 24, 44, 54–5, 58, 98, 139, 143 fn 4, 329–33 Coptic SVO structure 139 Innovative SV(O) order 120 Verb second (V2) 59, 65, 99, 100–1, 104 effect 26, 100, 156 element 106 grammar 116, 124 language 24, 98, 110, 124 loss of 99, 108 fn 13, 124 phenomenon 98, 103, 116 position 52 property 100, 101 of OldP 99 VO 12, 44, 51, 54–57, 63, 168, 330, 331, 333 VS 14, 99, 118, 120–23 VSO 15, 125, 146–50 VSX 14, 124–6 VXS 125–7 word order change 124, 127 Yiddish: 12, 25, 60–76