Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Following Berwick and Chomsky (2011), parameters are degrees of freedom open at the externalization (EXT) of syntactico-semantic structures (SEM) by sensorimotor systems (PHON) (Section 1). Within this framework, in Section 2 I focus on a case study concerning Northern Italian subject clitics, also raising the well-known question how to reconcile observable microvariation with the desideratum of a reduced number of (macro)parameters. Sections 3 reviews recent relevant models of parameterization, the Rethinking Comparative Syntax model (ReCoS, Biberauer et al. 2014) and the Parameters & Schemata model (Longobardi 20052017). Sections 45 return to the case study, taking the reductionist view that parameters may be just categorial cuts, such as the 1/2P vs 3P split, interacting with externalization and other general principles of grammar.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arregi, K. & Nevins, A.
    (2018) Beware Occam’s Syntactic Razor: Morphotactic Analysis and Spanish Mesoclisis. Linguistic Inquiry49(4), 625–683. doi:  10.1162/ling_a_00286.
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00286 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    (2001) The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Balari, S. & Lorenzo, G.
    (2018) The internal, the external and the hybrid: The state of the art and a new characterization of language as a natural object. Glossa, 3(1), 22. 1–33. doi: < 10.5334/gjgl.330
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.330 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benincà, P. & Haiman, J.
    (1992) The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N.
    (2011) The biolinguistic program: the current state of its evolution and development. InA. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biberauer, T.
    (2010) Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 153–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.
    (2012) Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: diachronic considerations. InJ. Chancharu, X. Hu & M. Mitrovic (Eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 209–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M.
    (2014) Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. InF. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Borer, H.
    (1983) Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Calabrese, A.
    (2011) Investigations on markedness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology Morphology, 21(2), 283–325. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9169‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9169-y [Google Scholar]
  12. Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L.
    (2008) The Phonology and Syntax of Preverbal and Postverbal Subject Clitics in Northern Italian Dialects. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 523–563. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.523
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.523 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chierchia, G.
    (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405. 10.1023/A:1008324218506
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrect: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2001) Derivation by phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2007) Approaching UG from below. InU. Sauerland & M. Gaertner (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax- semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. & Ott, D.
    (2017) Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. To appear inÁ. Gallego & D. Ott (Eds), Generative Syntax: Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges, Special issue ofCatalan Journal of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Embick, D.
    (2000) Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230. 10.1162/002438900554343
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554343 [Google Scholar]
  21. Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
    (2007) Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. InG. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Giannakidou, A.
    (1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non-)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.23 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.
    (2008) Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. InT. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.132.05gia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.132.05gia [Google Scholar]
  24. Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.
    (2017) Parameter theory and parametric comparison. InI. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 377–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InK. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1994) Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. InA. Carnie, H. Harley & T. Bures (Eds.), Papers on Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 275–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?Science, 298, 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmberg, A.
    (2010) Null subject parameters. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmberg, A. & Sheehan, M.
    (2010) Control into finite clauses in partial null-subject languages. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 125–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jelinek, E.
    (1984) Empty Categories and Non-Configurational Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 39–76. 10.1007/BF00233713
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233713 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kayne, R.
    (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2000) Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2010a) Comparisons and Contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010b) Toward a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005). InR. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe & B. Hollebrandse (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Groningen (2008), 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.2.09kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.2.09kay [Google Scholar]
  35. Kiparsky, P.
    (2008) Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. InJ. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  36. Longobardi, G.
    (2003) Methods in Parametric Linguistics and Cognitive History. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 3, 101–38. 10.1075/livy.3.06lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.3.06lon [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) A Minimalist Program for Parametric Linguistics?InH. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz & J. Koster (Eds.), Organizing Grammar, 407–14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2017) Principles, Parameters, and Schemata. A radically underspecified UG. Linguistic Analysis, 41, 3–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Manzini, M. R.
    (2015) On the substantive primitives of morphosyntax and their parametrization: Northern Italian subject clitics. InM. van Oosterdorp & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Representing structure in phonology and syntax, 167–194. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501502224‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502224-007 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2018) Micro‑ and macro-variation: From pronominal allomorphies to the category of irreality/non-veridicality. InM. Grimaldi, R. Lai, L. Franco & B. Baldi (Eds), Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond. In honour ofLeonardo M. Savoia, 109–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.252.07rit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.252.07rit [Google Scholar]
  41. Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. M.
    (2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 3vols.Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2007) A unification of morphology and syntax. Studies in Romance and Albanian varieties. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203968154
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203968154 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2011a) Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511974489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2011b) Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax?Lingua, 121, 1101–1120. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2011c) (Bio)linguistic variation: Have/be alternations in the present perfect. InA. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 222–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2017) Enclisis/proclis alternations in Romance: allomorphies and (re)ordering. Transactions of the Philological Society, 115, 98–136. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12093
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12093 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2018) The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505140
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140 [Google Scholar]
  48. Manzini, M. R. & Wexler, K.
    (1987) Binding theory, parameters and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 413–444.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pollock, J.-Y.
    (1989) Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Renzi, L. & Vanelli, L.
    (1983) I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. InScritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, 120–145. Pisa: Pacini.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Rizzi, L.
    (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110883718
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts, I.
    (2007) Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.
    (2010) Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.
    (2003) Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sheehan, M.
    (2014) Towards a Parameter Hierarchy for Alignment. InR. Santana-LaBarge (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 31, 399–408. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Shlonsky, U.
    (2009) Hebrew as a partial null subject language. Studia Linguistica, 63(1), 133–157. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2008.01156.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01156.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Wexler, K. & Manzini, M. R.
    (1987) Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. InT. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting, 41–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3727‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R., Chomsky, N. & Bolhuis, J.
    (2017) The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.023 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): externalization; lexicon; microvariation; null subject; parameter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error