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

Abstract

Abstract

This article discusses language universality and language variation, and suggests that there is no feature variation in initial syntax, featural variation arising by metamorphosis under transfer from syntax to PF-morphology. In particular, it explores the Zero Hypothesis, stating that Universal Grammar, UG, only provides two building elements, Root Zero and Edge Feature Zero, zero, as they are purely structural/formal elements with no semantic content in UG. Their potential content is provided by the Concept Mine, a mind-internal but language-external department. UG and narrow syntax has access to the Concept Mine, and this Syntax-Concept Access is unique to humans, a prerequisite for the evolution of language (Section 1). A related idea (also in Section 1) is coined the Generalized Edge Feature Approach, GEFA. It states that Merge always involves at least one edge feature, which precludes symmetric structures and enables Simplest Merge (no Pair-Merge, no Hilbert epsilon operator). The article advocates that there is no syntactic feature selection (Section 2), all syntactic features being universally accessible in the Concept Mine, via Root Zero and Edge Feature Zero. In contrast, there is feature selection in PF (including morphology), yielding variation (Section 3), Gender being a clear example (Section 4). However, there is a widely neglected syntax-to-PF-morphology metamorphosis (Section 5), such that morphological features like [past] are distinct from albeit related to syntactic features like Speech Time. Parameters operate on selected PF features, and not on purely syntactic features, so parameter setting is plausibly closely tied to the syntax-to-PF-morphology metamorphosis (the concluding Section 6). It is suggested that parameters are on the externalization side of language, part of or related to the sensory-motor system, facilitating motoric learning in language acquisition.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00013.sir
2020-11-06
2023-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00013.sir
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adger, D.
    (2018) The autonomy of syntax. InN. Hornstein, H. Lasnik, P. Patel-Grosz & Charles Yang (Eds.), Syntactic Structures after 60 years: The impact of the Chomskyan revolution in linguisticsII (pp.153–176). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501506925‑157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501506925-157 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adger, D., & Svenonius, P.
    (2011) Features in minimalist syntax. InCedric Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp.27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, M. C.
    (2008) The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  4. Banfield, A.
    (1982) Unspeakable sentences. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N.
    (2011) The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. InA. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp.19–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J.
    (2013) Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences17/2, 89–98. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berwick, R. C., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G., & Bolhuis, J. J.
    (2011) Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences15/3, 113–121. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boeckx, C.
    (2011) Approaching parameters from below. InA. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, (pp.205–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Burton-Roberts, N.
    (2011) On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition. Lingua121, 2089–2102. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  12. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2001) Derivation by phase. InM. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp.1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2004) Beyond explanatory adequacy. InA. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structuresvol.3 (pp.104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry36, 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2007) Approaching UG from Below. InH. M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (Ed.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp.1–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2008) On phases. InR. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp.133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) Problems of projection. Lingua130, 33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2019a) Noam Chomsky UCLA lectures. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/?fbclid=IwAR2McGBtkwbEvY4HW_1onnnLIzKcKmd6SnbP6h-w6wPcfOZkuEMTnfYlypc
  20. (2019b) Some puzzling foundational issues: The Reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Special Issue. 263–285. 10.5565/rev/catjl.287
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.287 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D.
    (2019) Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Special Issue. 229–261. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cinque, G.
    (1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) Cognition, Universal Grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua130, 50–65. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Collins, C.
    (2017) Merge (X, Y) = {X, Y}. InL. Bauke & A. Blühmel (Ed.), Labels and roots (pp.47–68). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501502118‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502118-003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Comrie, B.
    (1986) Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica20, 265–296. 10.1515/flin.1986.20.3‑4.265
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1986.20.3-4.265 [Google Scholar]
  26. Conrod, K.
    (2019) Pronouns, raising and emerging. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
  27. Corbett, G. G.
    (1979) The Agreement Hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics15, 203–224. 10.1017/S0022226700016352
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016352 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1991) Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  29. Den Dikken, M.
    (2006) Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
    (2007) Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. InG. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp.289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D.
    (2015) Simplest Merge generates set intersection: Implications for complementizer-trace explanation. InS. Epstein, H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Explorations in maximizing syntactic minimization (pp.175–194). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315722764
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722764 [Google Scholar]
  32. Frascarelli, M.
    (2007) Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory25, 691–734. 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9025‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x [Google Scholar]
  33. Gallistel, C. R.
    (2011) Prelinguistic thought. Language Learning and Development7, 253–262. 10.1080/15475441.2011.578548
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.578548 [Google Scholar]
  34. Greenberg, J. H.
    (1978) How does a language acquire gender markers?InJ. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol.III, Word Structure, 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InK. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building20 (pp.111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Harley, H. & Ritter, E.
    (2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language78, 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science298, 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hill, V.
    (2007) Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua117, 2077–2105. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jespersen, O.
    (1992) The philosophy of grammar. With a newintroduction and index byJames D. McCawley. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press [first published 1924 in London byGeorge Allen and Unwin].
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Katz, J. & Pesetsky, D.
    (2011) The Identity Thesis for language and music. ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000959
  41. Kiparsky, P.
    (2002) Event structure and the perfect. InD. I. Beaver, L. D. Casillas Martínez, B. Z. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Ed.), The construction of meaning (pp.113–136). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kučerová, I.
    (2018) ɸ-features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry49, 813–845. 10.1162/ling_a_00290
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00290 [Google Scholar]
  43. Landau, I.
    (2016) Agreement at PF: An argument from partial control. Syntax19, 79–109. 10.1111/synt.12118
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12118 [Google Scholar]
  44. Longobardi, G.
    (2006) A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?InH. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz, & J. Koster (Ed.), Organizing grammar (pp.407–414). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892994.407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892994.407 [Google Scholar]
  45. Moro, A.
    (2000) Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ogihara, T.
    (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8609‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8609-2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Reichenbach, H.
    (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rizzi, L.
    (1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. InL. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp.281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Roberts, I.
    (2019) Parameter hierarchies & Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198804635.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804635.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.
    (2010) Introduction: Parameters in Minimalist Theory. InTh. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp.1–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Ross, J. R.
    (1970) On declarative sentences. InR. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp.222–277). Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Sheehan, M., Biberauer, Th., Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A.
    (2017) The final-over-final condition: A syntactic universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Siewierska, A.
    (2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sigurðsson, E. F.
    (2017) Deriving case, agreement and voice phenomena in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  55. Sigurðsson, H. Á.
    (1989) Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic in a comparative GB approach. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University [republished (1992) inReykjavik: Institute of Linguistics].
  56. (2000) The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax65. 65–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (2004) The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics16, 219–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2006) Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. InC. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement systems (pp.201–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.92.10sig
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.10sig [Google Scholar]
  59. (2011) On UG and materialization. Linguistic Analysis37, 367–388.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2012) Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry43, 191–227. 10.1162/LING_a_00083
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00083 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014) Context-linked Grammar. Language Sciences43, 175–188. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2016) The Split T Analysis. InK. M. Eide (Ed.), Finiteness matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages (pp.79–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.231.03sig
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.231.03sig [Google Scholar]
  63. (2019) Gender at the edge. Linguistic Inquiry50, 723–750. 10.1162/ling_a_00329
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00329 [Google Scholar]
  64. Speas, P. & Tenny, C. L.
    (2003) Configurational properties of point of view roles. InA. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol.1, Syntax and semantics (pp.315–344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.57.15spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe [Google Scholar]
  65. Stowell, T.
    (2007) The syntactic expression of Tense. Lingua117, 437–463. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Svenonius, P.
    (2007) Interpreting uninterpretable features. Linguistic Analysis33, 375–413.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Tallerman, M.
    (2014) No syntax saltation in language evolution. Language Sciences46, 207–219. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang, C.
    (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn and break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wood, J.
    (2015) Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑09138‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wood, J. & Zanuttini, R.
    (2019) [submitted]. The Syntax of Presentatives: Evidence from English and Italian.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Zanuttini, R., Pak, M., & Portner, P.
    (2012) A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory30, 1231–1274. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9176‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9176-2 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00013.sir
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Concept Mine; edge computation; edge features; gender; language metamorphosis; parameters; Root Zero; Simplest Merge; tense

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