Language Design, Feature Economy, and the Subject Cycle Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University [email protected].

Language Design, Feature Economy,

and the Subject Cycle

Elly van GelderenArizona State University

[email protected]

Factors in Language Design

1. Genetic endowment = UG

2. Experience

3. Principles not specific to language

(Chomsky 2005: 6).

The third factor includes principles of efficient computation, which are "of particular significance in determining the nature of attainable languages" (Chomsky 2005: 6)

More details

(1) genetic endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition possible;

(2) external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow range;

(3) principles not specific to [the Faculty of Language]. Some of the third factor principles have the flavor of the constraints that enter into all facets of growth and evolution, [...] Among these are principles of efficient computation"

Some third factors

Strong Minimalist ThesisLanguage is a perfect solution to interface conditions (Chomsky 2007: 5)

Head Preference Principle (HPP):Be a head, rather than a phrase.Late Merge Principle (LMP): Merge as late as possible(van Gelderen 2004)

If there are Principles, they should be visible in Lg Change

Demonstrative pronoun that to C Pronoun whether to CDemonstrative to articleNegative adverb to negation markerAdverb to aspect markerAdverb to complementizer (e.g. till)Full pronoun to agreement

= Spec to head

Late Merge

On, from P to ASPVP Adverbials > TP/CP AdverbialsLike, from P > C (like I said)Negative objects to negative Modals: v > ASP > TNegative verbs to auxiliariesTo: P > ASP > M > C PP > C (for him to do that ...)

Negative Cycle in Old English450-1150 CE

a. no/ne early Old English

b. ne (na wiht/not) after 900, esp S

c. (ne) not after 1350

d. not > -not/-n’t after 1400

Spec to Head and Merge over Move

HPP

XP

Spec X'

na wiht X YP

not > n’t …

Late Merge

The Subject Cycle

(1) demonstrative > third person pron > clitic > agrmnt(2) oblique > emphatic > first/second pron > clitic > agrmnt

Basque verbal prefixes n-, g-, z- = pronouns ni ‘I’, gu ‘we’, and zu ‘you’.

Pama-Nyungan, inflectional markers are derived from independent pronouns.

Iroquoian and Uto-Aztecan agreement markers derive from Proto-Iroquoian pronouns

Cree verbal markers ni-, ki-, o-/ø = pronouns niya, kiya, wiya.

Some stages

Korean and Urdu/Hindi: full pronoun(1) ku-nun il-ul ha-nta

he-TOP work-ACC do-DECL(2)a. mẽy nee us ko dekha

1S ERG him DAT sawb. aadmii nee kitaab ko peRha

man ERG book DAT read(3) ham log `we people‘(4) mẽy or merii behn doonõ dilii mẽy rehtee hẽ

I and my sister both Delhi in living are

English: in transition(a) Modification, (b) coordination, (c) position, (d) doubling, (e) loss of V-movement, (f) Code switching

Coordination (and Case)(1) Kitty and me were to spend the day.(2) %while he and she went across the hall.

Position(3) She’s very good, though I perhaps I shouldn’t say

so.(4) You maybe you've done it but have forgotten.(5) Me, I was flying economy, but the plane, … was

guzzling gas

Doubling and cliticization(1) Me, I've tucking had it with the small place.(2) %Him, he ....(3) %Her, she shouldn’t do that (not

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

CSE-FAC:uncliticized cliticized total

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

Loss of V-movement and Code switching

(5) What I'm go'n do?

`What am I going to do'

(6) How she's doing?

`How is she doing‘(7) *He ging weg `he went away’ Dutch-English CS

(8) The neighbor ging weg

Grammaticalization =Specifier to Head

Subject Cyclea TP b TPDP T’ DP T’pron T VP pron-T VP

Urdu/Hindi, Korean Coll French

c TP[DP] T’pro agr-T VP

Italian varieties

French

(1) *Je et tu ...I and you

(2) *Je lis et écris`I read and write'.

(3) Je lis et j'écrisI read and I-write`I read and write'.

(4) J’ai vu ça.I-have seen that

(5) *Je probablement ai vu çaI probably have seen that

Formal > Colloquial

(1)mais je ne l'ai pas encore démontré

but I NEGit-have NEG yet proven

`but I haven't yet proven that' (Annales de l'institut Henri Poincaré, 1932, p. 284)

(2) j'ai pas encore démontré ça

Two problems w/ HPP and LMP

Minor: Move is `just’ internal merge

Major: Language Change proceeds in a cycle. HPP and LMP are 2 stages but 2 more:

(a) how is the head lost,

(b) how is the specifier replaced

Head > 0 is solvable: e.g. iconicity

Null hypothesis of language acquisition

A string is a word with lexical content.

Faarlund (2008) explains that "the child misses some of the boundary cues, and interprets the input string as having a weaker boundary (fewer slashes, stronger coherence) at a certain point"

My alternative: Feature Economy

Feature Economy

Minimize the interpretable features in the derivation, e.g:

Adj/Arg Specifier Head affix

semantic > [iF] > [uF] > --

Subject > Agreement

emphatic > full pronoun > head > agreement

[i-phi] [i-phi] [u-1/2] [u-phi]

[i-3]

What is FE?

• Maximize syntax?

• Keep merge going?

• Lighter?

Conclusions

• Economy Principles = Third factor

• Children use these to analyze their input + there is language change if accepted.

• Change is from the inside

• Possible Principles: HPP and LMP– but some problems

• Therefore, Feature Economy