1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Volume 1, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The main designs of modern theories of syntax assume a process of syntagmatic organization. However, research on first language acquisition leaves no doubt that the structured combination of single lexical items cannot begin until a critical mass of lexical items has been acquired such that the lexicon is structured hierarchically on the basis of hierarchical feature bundling. Independent of a decision between the main views about the design of a proto language (the grammarless “Holophrastic view”, Arbib & Bickerton 2010: 1, Bickerton 2014) or the ‘Compositional View’ as taken by Rizzi (2010)Carstairs-McCarthy (2010), and others. What seems to be the minimal offset for language is the existence of grammatical categories like verb and noun, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, functional categories as needed for the expression of all kinds of agreement between the distinct categories to form recursively structured complexes. I follow the different stages of complexification asking whether there is paradigmatic next to syntagmatic organization and what its added value is for the evolution of grammar. The conclusion will be that paradigmatics is an indismissible part of the organization of early language in that it structures the lexicon so as to make primary and secondary syntactic merge possible and, consequently, is also a prerequisite for movement. The guiding idea of this position is Roman Jakobson’s insistence on the twofold organization of language and grammar. The two organizational designs, syntagmatics and paradigmatics, are manifest within each module: in the phonetic, the morphological, the syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic form (consider Jakobson’s 1971ab reiterated argument).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
2020-01-24
2024-09-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W.
    (1997) Kausativierung und Dekausativierung: zu Fragen der verbparadigmatischen Markierung in der Germania. InTh. Birkmann, H. Klingenberg, D. Nübling & E. Ronneberger-Sibold (Eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner (pp.13–28). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110931259‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110931259-002 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000) Zwischen extensionaler Ökonomie und intensionaler lokalistischer Präzisierung: Dativobjekte im Deutschen und ihre Wiedergabe im kasuslosen Niederländischen. InA. Bittner, D. Bittner & K.-M. Köpcke (Eds.), Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax (pp.299–316). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2006) Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic among all of Germanic). InL. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency, and transitivity (pp.115–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.10abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.10abr [Google Scholar]
  4. (2008) Reflexiv- und Passivdiathesen im germanisch-romanischen Vergleich. Ein Ansatz. InE. Stark, R. Schmidt-Riese & E. Stoll (Eds.), Romanische Syntax im Wandel (pp.87–112). Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2012) Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure?InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and theory of mind elements across languages (pp.67–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271072.67
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271072.67 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) SOV-SVO/VSO-OVO oder T3: Deutsch – Englisch – Polnisch: Unterspezifikation, die UG erst ausmacht. InK. Lukas & I. Olszewska (Eds.), Deutsch im Kontakt und im Kontrast. Festschrift für Prof. Andrzej Kątny zum 65. Geburtstag (pp.75–104). Frankfurt: P. Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Review (article) of Andrew Carstairs-McCarty 2010 The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Word Structure10.1, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (forthcoming). Modality: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Abraham, W. & Conradie, J. C.
    (2001) Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.103
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.103 [Google Scholar]
  10. Abraham, W. & Leiss, E.
    (2012) The case differential: Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic case – its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society110: 316–341. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2012.01315.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01315.x [Google Scholar]
  11. (2017) Multiple case binding – The principled underspecification of case exponency. InL. Hellan, A. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Contrastive studies in verbal valency (pp.27–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.237.02abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.02abr [Google Scholar]
  12. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2012) Review of Gabriele Diewald, Elena Smirnova (Eds.) 2010 Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Studies in Language36(1): 431–439.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Aissen, J.
    (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21: 435–448. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  14. Arbib, M. & Bickerton, D.
    (Eds.) (2010) The emergence of protolanguage: holophrasis vs compositionality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.24 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ardila, A.
    (2010) A proposed reinterpretation and reclassification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology24(3): 363–394. 10.1080/02687030802553704
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030802553704 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bach, E.
    (1981): On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.63–82). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Baumann, S., Röhr, Ch. & Grice, M.
    (2015) Prosodische (De-)Kodierung des Informationsstatus im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft34(1): 1–42. 10.1515/zfs‑2015‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
    (2016) Why only us. Language and evolution. Cam-bridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bickerton, D.
    (2014) More than nature needs. Language, mind and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674728523
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674728523 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bossong, G.
    (1985) Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brugmann, K.
    (1889) Einleitung und Lautlehre. 1886 II. Wortbildungslehre 1. Vorbemerkungen. Nominalkomposita. 1989. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bühler, K.
    (1934) Sprachtheorie. Ungekürzter Neudruck der Ausgabe von 1934. Stuttgart: UTB 1982.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
    (2010) The evolution of morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Champollion, L. & Krifka, M.
    (2016) Mereology. InM. Aloni (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics (pp.513–541). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139236157.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.014 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chomsky, N. & Morris, H.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Corbett, G. G.
    (2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  28. Diewald, G. & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) 2010 Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110241037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  29. Doitchinov, S.
    (2001) „Es kann sein, dass der Junge nach Hause gegangen ist“ – Zum Erstspracherwerb von können in epistemischer Lesart. InR. Müller & M. Reis (Eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen (pp.111–134). Hamburg: Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Embick, D.
    (2004) On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry35(3): 355–392. 10.1162/0024389041402634
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402634 [Google Scholar]
  31. van Gelderen, E.
    (2011) The Linguistic Cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gertsch, J.
    (2012) Cross-cultural comparisons of medicinal floras – what are the implications for bioprospecting?J. Ethnopharmacol. 139, 685–687. doi:  10.1016/j.jep.2011.09.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2011.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gretsch, P. & Perdue, C.
    (2007) Finiteness in first and second language acquisition. InI. Nikolava (Ed), Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp.432–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Haeckel, E.
    (1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. 2Voll.Berlin: G. Reimer.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1874) Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. 10.5962/bhl.title.119035
     https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.119035 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hagoort, P. R. & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (2009) The speaking brain. Science326: 372–373. 10.1126/science.1181675
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181675 [Google Scholar]
  37. Haider, H.
    (2012) German syntax. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T.
    (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?Science298. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hauser, M. D. & Bever, Th. G.
    (2008) A biolinguistic agenda. Science322: 1057–1059. 10.1126/science.1167437
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167437 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hauser, M. D.
    (2016) Challenges to the what, when, and why?Biolinguistics10: 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hellbernd, N. & Sammler, D.
    (2016) Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language88: 70–86. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jakobson, R.
    (1936) Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague6: 240–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (1962/1969) Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (1971a) Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutung der russischen Kasus. InR. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp.33–71). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. (1971b) The relation between genitive and plural in the declension of Russian nouns. InR. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp.148–153). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (1971c) Two types of language and two types of aphasic disturbance. InR. Jakobson (1971), Selected writings II (pp.239–259). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Krifka, M.
    (1986) Massennomina. Mit einem Exkurs zu Aktionsarten, Berichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99 “Grammatik und sprachliche Prozesse” der Universität Konstanz117, Mai 1986.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2007) Basic notions of information structure. InC. Fery & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6 (pp.13–55). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. [see also inActa Linguistica Hungarica55 (2008), 243–276].
     [Google Scholar]
  50. La Joie, R., Landeau, B., Perrotin, A., Bejanin, A., Egret, St., Pélerin, A., Mézenge, F., Belliard, S., De La Sayette, V., Eustache, F., Desgranges, B. & Chételat, G.
    (2014) Intrinsic connectivity identifies the hippocampus as a main crossroad between Alzheimer’s and semantic dementia-targeted networks. Neuron81: 1417–1428. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.026
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.026 [Google Scholar]
  51. Leiss, E.
    (1992) Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (1997) Synkretismus und Natürlichkeit. Folia Linguistica31: 133–160. 10.1515/flin.1997.31.1‑2.133
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1997.31.1-2.133 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2000) Artikel und Aspekt. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110825961
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110825961 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2004) Submorphematische Motiviertheit als Grammatikalisierungsergebnis – Grammatikalisierung von Reflexivpronomina. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik32: 233–244. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.233
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.233 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2007) Covert patterns of definiteness/indefiniteness and aspectuality in Old Icelandic, Gothic, and Old High German.In: E. Stark, E. Leiss & W. Abraham (Eds.), Nominal Determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence (pp.73–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.89.06lei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.89.06lei [Google Scholar]
  56. Leiss, E. & Abraham, W.
    (Eds.) (2014) Modes of modality. Modality, typology, and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.149
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149 [Google Scholar]
  57. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Müller, G.
    (2004) On decomposing inflection class features: syncretism in Russian noun inflection. InG. Müller, L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 189–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197501.189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197501.189 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2007) Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology17: 1–38. 10.1007/s11525‑007‑9114‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9114-x [Google Scholar]
  60. Opitz, B. & Friederici, A. D.
    (2004) Brain correlates of language learning: The neuronal dissociation of rule-based versus similarity-based learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24(39): 8436–8440. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2220‑04.2004
     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2220-04.2004 [Google Scholar]
  61. Ranganath, Ch. & Ritchey, M.
    (2012) Two cortical systems for memory guided behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience13: 713–726. 10.1038/nrn3338
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3338 [Google Scholar]
  62. Reichenbach, H.
    (1948) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Rizzi, L.
    (2010) On the nature of linguistic computations: complexity, development and evolution. Paper presented atSummer Institute on the Origins of language, UQÀM, Montreal, Canada, June 21th-30th.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sokolov, J. & Snow, C.
    (2010) Handbook of research in language development using CHILDES. Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Szagun, G.
    (2013) Sprachentwicklung beim Kind. Ein Lehrbuch. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Tulving, E.
    (1972) Episodic and semantic memory. InE. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory, 381–403. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (2002) Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1–25. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2005) Episodic memory and autopoiesis. Uniquely human?InH. S. Terrace & J. Metcalfe (Eds.), The missing link in cognition. Origins of self-reflexive consciousness (pp.3–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161564.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161564.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zwarts, J.
    (2005) Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6): 739–779. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑2466‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2466-y [Google Scholar]
  70. (2008) Aspects of a typology of direction. InS. D. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp.79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.110.05zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.110.05zwa [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
Loading
What are the guiding principlesin the evolution of language:Paradigmatics or syntagmatics?
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1, 109 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00007.abr
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): first language acquisition; paradigmatic; proto-language; syntagmatics

Most Cited

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