CAS LX 500 Topics in Linguistics Fall 2000 Language Universals December 2, 2000 Paul Hagstrom Week 5: Summary An overview of what we ve seen Underlying plot: Classification: There are lots of languages, and they differ from one another. but they do not differ randomly. The range of possible human languages is not unbounded (structurally). What we have done is explore a sample of how languages can differ and how they can t. 4000 8000 languages, which can be grouped in various ways. (Structural characteristics, historical relatedness, areal proximity) Structural characteristics that hold of all languages: absolute universals Structural characteristics that hold of most languages: universal tendencies Conditional characteristics: If L has X, it will have Y: implicational universals The topics we ve covered:. Classification and implicational universals, innateness explanation 2. Hierarchy of color terms, hierarchy of vowels. Pidgins and creoles, Nicaraguan Sign Language 4. L acquisition; phonological perception, babbling, one word stage 5. Optional Infinitives, syntax (verb raising), SLI, Korean negation 6. Case errors during L acquisition, Tense and agreement in French 7. Structure-building in L & L2 acquisition (syntax: V2, VPISH) 8. L2 acquisition; Case-drop in Japanese and accessibility of ECP. 9. Noun phrase accessibility hierarchy 0. Ergativity, Mahajan s P-incorporation account. Optimality Theory, syllables and prosody, sonority hierarchy 2. Passamaquoddy and Mohawk unstressable syllables. Question formation, wh-movement, wh-islands, Irish English Q-float 4. Particle movement in Japanese and Sinhala 5. Semantics of questions, briefly 6. Animacy hierarchy 7. Functional projections; AgrP in French 8. Adverb hierarchy and more functional projections 9. Universal base order Major take-home points of each topic Classification Caveat: In many cases, it is not entirely true to say that a language can be classified in one of these groups often a language will be dominantly in one category but show characteristics of another category in a small part of its grammar. This strengthens the case for a universal inventory of language components. Morphology: Analytic MANDARIN Polysynthetic SIBERIAN YUPIK Agglutinative KOREAN Fusional RUSSIAN (agr/case) Basic word order: SOV most common JAPANESE Subject SVO very common ENGLISH Object VSO common IRISH Verb VOS rare MALAGASY OVS very rare HIXKARYANA OSV very rare? V2 common GERMAN Case-marking: Nominative/Accusative SA/O most common ENGLISH Ergative/Absolutive A/SO less common DYIRBAL S=intransitive subject A=transitive subject O=transitive object Markedness Universals Unmarked features are the most statistically common ( default ). Marked features are the most statistically rare. The vowel /a/ is in pretty much every language there is. The vowel /π/ is in relatively few languages. /a/ is unmarked relative to /π/. Often, this turns into an implicational universal; if a language has the vowel /π/, it will have the vowel /a/. If a language has nasalized vowels, then it will have non-nasalized vowels; hence [+nasal] is marked (relative to [ nasal]). Patterns have been observed, looking at a wide range of languages. Some implicational universals (If a language L has X, it will have Y), but some more powerful universals in terms of hierarchies (In an ordered list, if a language has a feature X, it will have all of the less marked features on the hierarchy as well).
Why do languages conform to universal implications? Several reasons: Functional pressures Some sounds are hard to make; the harder a sound is to make, the less likely it is to be part of a language s phonological repertoire. Choice of vowels maximizes phonetic distance in order to aid perception. Color receptors in the human eye might make certain divisions of the color space more differentiated than others in terms of perception (and you name colors you can differentiate) Subjects tend to be more important to the message than objects, hence would come first Genetic origin If the parent language had a feature, it s often likely that languages descended from it will have the feature. Language instinct Part of the makeup of the human brain leads us to have language, but it is structured in a particular way that only allows certain languages. A priori, we don t know which is the root cause for any given universal, but the most interesting ones are those which give us insight into the language instinct ( Universal Grammar ) that humans come with. (These are the ones we ve mainly been looking at) Implicational universals: p q. Meaning: There are languages with p & q, p & q, p & q but (nearly) no languages like p & q. Good ones three of the four possibilities must be attested one must be unattested (since it would be a counterexample) attested languages should be reasonably numerous. All languages have vowels If a language has distinct /2 reflexives, it has reflexives Nearly all languages have nasal consonants [some Salish languages don t] If a language is SOV it is probably postpositional [Persian is SOV with prepositions] Non-implicational absolute Implicational absolute Non-implicational tendency Implicational tendency Color and Vowel Hierarchies (Berlin & Kay 969, Crothers 978) Color foci: If a language has, e.g., green, it will have red, white, and black. purple () white < red < green < blue < brown < pink black yellow orange gray Interestingly: Color foci were reliable, crosslinguistically, across informants, across trials. Color boundaries were extremely unreliable It is important to look at the data in the right way to see the universals. (Often, this requires consideration of the abstract syntactic structure, for example) Hierarchy for vowel inventories (based on 209 languages studied by Crothers): (2) /i a u/ > /π/ > / / > /ø/ > /\/ > /e/ > /o/ (roughly) Dispersion. Colors appear to be arranged in the color space so that their foci are maximally distinct. Vowels appear to be arranged in the color space so that their foci are maximally distinct. Pidgins and Creoles (Bickerton) Pidgin. Speech forms which do not have native speakers, primarily used as a means of communication among people who do not share a common language. Unsystematic. Creole languages (creoles). Has native speakers, acquired with a pidgin as input. Because the input has no discernible structure, children have to impose structure (of human language, as dictated by UG) on the input and they do. Children s language (creole) is systematic, and includes innovations not found in the pidgin or the substrate languages. Moreover, the innovations are substantially similar across creolization situations. Articles: HCE Definite specific NP, presupposed the boat da Indefinite specific NP, asserted a certain boat wan Ø nonspecific NP some boat Ø
Tense Modality Aspect (TMA) systems: Order: Tense Modality Aspect HCE bin Tense particle expresses past for stative verbs (was hungry) past before past for action verbs (had walked) go Modality particle expresses irrealis (futures will eat and conditionals if we eat) stei Aspect particle expresses nonpunctual (progressive, habitual, iterative) Sentence complementizers: fo One for realized actions (I managed C to stop, I saw C John leave). go A different one for hypothetical actions (I wanted C 2 John to leave) Adjectives as verbs (no copula to be): Bill intelligent (vs. Bill is intelligent) Questions: Yes-no: no word order changes, often optionally a sentence-final particle. Wh: Question word first, no other word order changes. Serial verb constructions: (common) Multiple verbs with one subject, at most one object, one tense/aspect/negation (no coordinators and or subordinators that or intervening pauses) Nicaraguan Sign Language: (Kegl et al) Arguably a pure creole situation pidgin is unsystematic hodgepodge of home signs, creole is what the kids in the schools for the deaf wound up speaking (innovative, increased fluency). Also indicates that signed languages are governed by the same internal language system as spoken languages (signed languages are real languages). Creole doesn t seem to share all of the same properties as the spoken creoles (though it seems to have serial verb constructions), but some of this may have to do with modality (agglutinative morphology, for example). Critical period: Children younger than 7 years old generally were able to acquire the creole; older signers were not able to fill in the holes in the grammar like the younger acquirers. Conclusion: It doesn t take language to make language (something must be innate). Basic syntactic structure (of course, more said about this in the later classes) () a. She will leave. b. She will not leave. c. She left. This one is the oddball. d. She did not leave. So, we have evidence for the following positions in our sentences: (4) subject tense/agreement (not) verb (object) (5) XP Spec X X Comp (6) IP She I VP will V NP eat lunch (7) IP Past tense ed is a suffix, so it is pronounced with the verb to make ate She a little like French: à + le au I VP de + le du -ed à + les aux V NP eat lunch She ate lunch (8) a. I know [ that she will eat lunch ]. b. I wonder [ if she ill eat lunch ]. c. Will she eat lunch? d. What will she eat? This gives us evidence for another position (in fact another XP) before the subject: (9) complementizer subject tense/agreement verb object
(0) CP C C IP that/if she I VP will V NP eat lunch (2) CP NP i C what C+I j IP will she t j VP V t i eat () CP C C+I i IP will she t i VP V NP eat lunch We also have some reason to believe that the subject doesn t start in SpecIP but rather starts in SpecVP and moves to SpecIP: () a. All the students will leave. b. c. The students will all leave. * The students will leave all. Word order variation and syntactic parameters (4) IP NP i I the students I VP will NP! all t i V leave It seems to be possible to describe the structure of all languages in these structural terms. That is, the structure is basically universal, but certain parameters can differ from language to language. One parameter: Order of O and V in terms of order of V and NP under (5) SVO: SOV: U U V NP NP V verb object object verb And possibly another parameter: Order of S and VO in terms of order of I and NP. Lexical categories: Functional categories: Noun, verbs, adjectives, adverbs open class items. (Things you can make new ones of Xerox, Xeroxed, etc.) Complementizers, tense, modals (might, can, should, could), determiners (the, a). So: CP, IP are functional projections. VP is a lexical projection. ( projection = XP ). (6)SVO/SOV: VOS/OVS: U U IP IP I NP subject RU RU subject
(7) CP A lot of languages, for example French, move the verb up the tree to combine C IP with Infl. NOTE: This generally happens (that) with finite verbs often NP she I nonfinite verbs do not move. Infl+Verb VP [pres sg] tells Adv VP t t NP the truth (8) a. * She tells always the truth. (9) a. Elle dit toujours la vérité. b. She always tells the truth. b. * Elle toujours dit la vérité. (20) VSO: CP Some languages move the verb to Infl and move the whole thing higher: VSO vs. SVO: C+Infl+V IP buys John t VP t t NP lunch (2) V2: CP Some languages (like German) do this too, but also require that something move yesterday C to the left of C (leaving the verb in second position ). (Like in English C+Infl+V IP wh-questions) buys John t VP t VP t t NP lunch So, this view says that the trees are basically provided by UG (CP, IP, VP) and that languages differ only in the order of things in the underlying tree and what they move. verb-object order (order of branches under ) [SVO, SOV] verb-subject order (order of branches under IP) [SVO, VOS] whether V moves to Infl [English vs. French] whether Infl moves to C [SVO, VSO] whether something has to be to the left of C [V2] In French, you can see that finite verbs move and nonfinite verbs do not by looking at the order of negation (pas) and the verb. (22) IP subject I+V NegP " Neg VP not pas t V NP z----------m object (2) subject V finite +Infl neg object (24) subject (Infl) neg V nonfinite object An example of a head-final language (NP precedes V under, VP precedes I under I, IP precedes C under C ). (25) Chelswu-ka chayk-ul sa-ess-ni? Korean Chelswu-NOM book-acc buy-past-q Did Chelswu buy a book? (26) CP C IP C in CP, pronounce TP before C ni in IP, prounounce NP before I Chelswu-ka VP I in I, pronounce VP before I ess in, pronounce NP before V NP V chayk-ul sa
The Split INFL hypothesis functional heads TP and AgrP In French, we found that: All finite verbs appear left of negation (raising to INFL). Nonfinite auxiliaries can appear left of negation, Nonfinite main verbs cannot appear left of negation. (27) V/Aux finite Neg t Aux nonfinite Neg t * V nonfinite Neg t But that: All finite verbs appear left of adverbs Nonfinite auxiliaries can appear left of adverbs Nonfinite main verbs can appear left of adverbs (28) Ne pas arriver souvent en retard, c est important. ne not arrive often late it is important It is important not to often arrive late. There is a position between the adverb souvent and Neg pas where the verb can move. The hypothesis: IP is really two projections TP (tense) and AgrP (agreement) The morphology on the verb suggests that AgrP is the higher of the two because the tense morphology is closer to the verb stem: (29) NP V T Agr a. je parl ai s b. tu parl ai s c. il parl ai t speak PAST person+# (0) NP V T Agr a. je parl er ai b. tu parl er as c. il parl er speak FUT a person+# If the finite verb moves to one and then the other, it would look like this: () AgrP Agr Agr TP T V+T VP t... (2) AgrP Agr [V+T]+Agr TP T t VP t...
So, in [V+T]+Agr, T is closer to the verb and is the head that was moved to first. Mirror Principle. Morphological derivations (suffixation, prefixation, etc.) directly reflect syntactic derivations... First Language Acquisition Children universally seem to go through a number of stages as they acquire language: Preliminary stage (0-;0) (prelinguistic development, babbling) Single word stage (;0 ;6) Two word stage (;6 2;0) (simple sentences, vocabulary explosion) Simple sentences Complete sentences (embedding) Phonological perception At a very early age, infants seem to be able to discriminate both native & non-native contrasts. As they grow older, they become less able to do so (presumably as they tune their phonological system to the language they are learning) Study on Hindi/English contrasts /ba/~/da/ /d h a/~/t h a/ /ta/~/ta/: nearly all the kids 6 8 mo. could discriminate non-english contrasts 8-0 mo. kids showed decrease in ability (mixed performance) by 0 2 mo. kids do much worse, like adults Babbling 4 6 months, isolated consonant & vowel type sounds 6 months, reduplicative CV syllables. 0 months, wider range of syllable types (CVC, VC), syllable sequences with more varied members. Two-word stage (;6 2;0) or so First evidence of syntactic development (one word couldn t give us evidence of this). Tremendous vocabulary explosion. Maturation and optional infinitives (Wexler et al.) Re: interaction between inflection (tense marking, agreement) and syntax (word order). The optional infinitive stage (around 2;0): a. There are main clauses with finite verbs. b. There are main clauses with nonfinite verbs. c. Children move the verb as required in the adult language for each type of verb. French kids around 2;0 [+finite] [ finite] pas verb 77 (would be adult like) verb pas 85 (adult like) 2 German kids around 2;0 [+finite] [ finite] V-final 7 (would be adult like) V2 97 (adult like) 6 Conclusion: Children know about tense, and they know what effect tense has on word order. What s different between kids and adults seems to be that they don t always produce finite verbs, but when they produce a nonfinite verb, it is treated like a nonfinite verb would be in the adult language. Other languages for which there is evidence of an OI stage: All Germanic languages studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese). Also, French, Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Czech, Hebrew. Very Early Parameter Setting. From the earliest observable stage, that is, from the time that children produce multi-word utterances, they have correctly set the basic inflectional/clause structure parameters. These include the V-to-TNS (verb raising) parameter, the V2 parameter, and parameters of basic word order, including the relative order of the verb and the object. Optional Infinitive Stage? Tense is optional. (Everything else [UG, language-particular grammar] is known to the child) Maturation. The hypothesis put forward by Wexler is that this is an example of maturation, analogous to losing one s baby teeth and growing new ones. The part of grammar that requires tense in an adult utterance is not in place yet in the child s grammar, though pretty much the rest of it is. Null subjects: In many languages it is possible to leave the subject out if it is recoverable (where English would use a pronoun like he, she, they). Often this has to do with the fact that the verb is marked with the person of the subject. These languages are null subject languages.
Kids around 2;0 produce a lot of null subjects, but they are much more frequent with nonfinite verbs, and even in non-null subject languages you can get null subjects in nonfinite clauses. Further evidence that kids know how tense and agreement works (and how it interacts with null subjects). () a. I want [ to leave]. Leaving is to be done by me. b. I want [Bill to leave]. Null Subject/Optional Infinitive generalization: Only non-null subject languages seem to show optional infinitives around age 2;0. (No OI s in Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, Polish). Hebrew: only allows null subjects in st/2nd person, non-present, and everywhere else we find OI s in kids speech. Specific Language Impairment (SLI). At least a certain form seems to be explainable as an extended optional infinitive stage kids who persist in using nonfinite main clause verbs longer than usual. Further evidence of a maturation-type account? Other reflexes of OI stage? Korean kids make an error with one form of negation which happens at about the same age as OI s happen in other languages. Same root cause? Subject Case errors Default case: In sort of syntactically impoverished environments (no verb), English: ACC. Russian, Dutch, German, Faroese would all use NOM in such environments (NOM default). (4) a. (Who did it?) Me. b. It s us. It s me. c. Me too. d. Me, I like pizza. (5) Der, den habe ich gesehen. He, him have I seen Him, him I saw. English kids sometimes make errors in the Case of the subject, in these other languages, kids don t seem to make errors. (6) a. I get Bozo. (A 2;) b. Me get John. (A 2;) c. My see that. (A 2;) Finiteness vs. case subject Finite Nonfinite he+she 46 75 him+her 4 28 % non-nom 0.9% 27% d. Him fall down. (N 2;.4) e. Her have a big mouth. (N 2;2.6) Nearly all of the time kids use ACC, they ve also used a nonfinite verb. Idea: If kids leave out either TP or AgrP, the verb is nonfinite, but only if they leave out AgrP is there a Case error. Optional Infinitive Stage? Tense and/or agreement is optional. Growing trees in first language acquisition Another explanation for the Optional Infinitive stage (other than that tense and/or agreement is optionally omissible in an otherwise full syntactic tree): Kids start with small trees (VP only) and gradually add structure. (We might augment this with a separate TP stage and an AgrP stage the L2 results in the next section suggest this) (7) a. VP b. IP NP my I V NP Infl VP make a house t V NP color me c. IP d. CP NP C what where Infl VP C IP NP my I V t Infl VP making t V NP put it Stage (c) is the best evidence for this view; kids producing their early wh-questions consistently produce non-nominative subjects. On which one is right, the jury is still out.
Second language acquisition as tree-growing (Vainikka & Young-Scholten) Transfer of parameter settings from L. Native speakers of SOV languages learning German (naturalistically) start speaking German as SOV (essentially correctly, modulo V2), while native speakers of SVO languages start speaking German as SVO (incorrectly) and then move to SOV. Tree growing. L2A starts at a VP stage? No verb raising (verbs follow negation and adverbs), no modals (which start in INFL), no agreement, no complementizers (which start in C), no wh-movement, verbs follow negation and adverbs. Next stage TP stage? Verb movement, some auxiliaries and modals, but still no agreement, complementizers, or wh-movement. Next stage AgrP stage? CP stage? Verb raising common, auxiliaries and modals common, agreement acquired, some embedded clauses with complementizers, complex wh-questions. Infinitives? L kids show correlation between finiteness and position L2 adults don t. L2 learners: When they use the finite form, it is treated syntactically as finite. Where a finite form is required, they treat the verb as finite, but sometimes use the nonfinite form of the verb. Where a nonfinite form is required, they use the nonfinite form correctly. in LA, when a verb is finite (underlyingly) it is pronounced and treated as finite, and when a verb is nonfinite (underlyingly) it is pronounced and treated as nonfinite. in L2A, when a verb is finite (underlyingly) it is treated as finite, but sometimes pronounced as finite and sometimes pronounced as nonfinite. When a verb is nonfinite (underlyingly) it is pronounced and treated as nonfinite. Universal principles and Case drop in Japanese Syntactic research has identified a principle that appears to be operative in all languages, the Empty Category Principle. In English, it accounts for (8) moving a wh-subject out from under that is ungrammatical. (8) a. Who did John predict t i would win the election? b. * Who did John predict that t i would win the election? In Japanese, the ECP allows dropping of the object Case marker, but not the subject Case marker. (9) a. John ga sono hon o yonda. John nom that book acc read John read that book. b. * John Ø sono hon o yonda. c. John ga sono hon Ø yonda. Two different effects from the same universal principle. L2 native speakers of English learning Japanese, untrained in the rules for Case marker dropping, nevertheless perform correctly they allow dropping the object Case marker, but not the subject Case marker. From what the students did see, it would have been difficult to see the generalization: Nominative markers can be dropped on objects of certain verbs. Topic markers (on logical subjects) can be dropped just not subject markers. The textbook just said that dropping case markers reduces emphasis, no hint at the restriction. The conclusion is: The students were not taught this, nor were they given evidence sufficient to figure it out. Nevertheless, they appear to adhere to it. Universal Grammar constrains first languages to be languages which respect the ECP. It appears that UG also constrains what languages are available to L2 learners. The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (40) The man [(who) I met]. head noun ----m z---- relative clause Rel. clauses categorized by what role the head noun would play inside the relative clause: Subject relatives: The man [who gave me a newspaper] Object relatives: The man [(who(m)) I met yesterday] Indirect object relatives: The man [(who(m)) I gave the newspaper to ] Object of a preposition: The man [(who(m)) we have been arguing about ] Genitive: The man [whose house I bought ] Object of a comparative ( -er than): The man [who I am taller than ] Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Object of P > Genitive > Comparative Object This is the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy. The subject is most accessible (easiest) for relativization. The object of a comparative is least accessible (hardest) for relativization. If a language can relativize position X in the hierarchy, it can relativize all positions higher (to the left) on the hierarchy.
Nominative/Accusative vs. Ergative/Absolutive S = intransitive subject A = transitive subject O = transitive object Nominative/Accusative: Ergative/Absolutive: S and A (NOMINATIVE) vs. O (ACCUSATIVE) S and O (ABSOULUTIVE) vs. A (ERGATIVE) The different one is usually marked with an overt case marker: Agreement marking can also be nominative/accusative or ergative/absolutive. Ellipsis processes also tend to allow only interpretation within the group. (4) [I returned] and [ saw him] If is interpreted as I, NOM/ACC pattern S A (42) [I saw him] and [ returned] If is interpreted as him, ERG/ABS pattern O S Languages are often not fully ergative or fully nominative. Dyirbal is syntactically ergative, and generally ergative, but in the first and second person plural pronouns, the overt markings are NOM/ACC. English is almost everywhere NOM/ACC, but there are tiny pockets of ERG/ABS: Employee, Employer, Escapee (-ee on S and O, -er on A). Animacy hierarchy The type of noun can affect whether it is marked according to a NOM/ACC system or according to an ERG/ABS system. Arabana Thargari Dyirbal st/2nd person NOM/ACC NOM/ACC NOM/ACC rd person NOM/ACC NOM/ACC ERG/ABS human NOM/ACC NOM/ACC ERG/ABS animate nonhuman NOM/ACC ERG/ABS ERG/ABS inanimate ERG/ABS ERG/ABS ERG/ABS That is, there seems to be an animacy hierarchy such that nouns which are more animate are more likely to be marked according to a NOM/ACC system, whereas nouns which are less animate are more likely to be marked according to an ERG/ABS system. Telling apart the NOM and ACC in Slavic. Old Church Slavonic: plurals have different forms in the masculine. Czech: plurals have different forms in the animate masculine. Russian plurals have different forms in the animate. Deciding in Czech whether something can be a possessor ( decision tree ). * means impossible as a possessor. NPs Pronouns Nouns *Neuter Masc, Fem *Plural Singular *Inanimate Animate *Not uniquely Uniquely identifiable identifiable There seem to be several hierarchies and they interact (they are independent hierarchies): Nominal hierarchy: Animacy hierarchy: Gender hierarchy: Number hierarchy: Definiteness hierarchy: Syllables and sonority pronouns > proper nouns > kinship terms > common nouns human > nonhuman animates > inanimates masculine > feminine > neuter singular > plural uniquely identifiable > not uniquely identifiable Syllable types:every language has CV syllables. If a language has VC syllables, it has V syllables. The more complex the syllable edges (CVCC, CCVCC, ), the less likely. Vowel length possibilities: Every language has short vowels. If a language has super-heavy vowels ( timing slots), it has heavy vowels (2 timing slots) No language has super-super-heavy vowels (4 timing slots)
Syllables and weight. A heavy syllable (e.g., a syllable with a long vowel) is represented as having two weight units (moras), and a light syllable has just one weight unit (mora). σ σ µ µ µ µ = mora Light σ Heavy σ g g g g (4) σ σ σ gi gi µ nucleus µ µ µ µ onset gr t a t a t a p ta taa tap Light σ Heavy σ Heavy σ coda Open σ (CV) Open σ (CV) Closed σ (CVC) The syllable inventory of a language seems to make reference to a hierarchy of sonority. Sonority:. voiceless stops voiceless fricatives obstruents 2. voiced stops. voiced fricatives 4. voiced nasals voiced laterals sonorants (m, n, r, l) 5. voiced r-sounds 6. voiced high vowels vowels 7. voiced mid vowels 8. voiced low vowels Moraicity constraint (what sonority is required to be a mora) Syllabicity constraint (what sonority is required to be a syllable nucleus) (44) most sonorous a (σ constraint is always at least as high i as µ, since a syllable nucleus is \ both a mora and a syllable.) m syllabicity constraint (σ) ENGLISH s d least sonorous t moraicity constraint (µ) ENGLISH (45) Sets of syllabic segments a. vowels Lithuanian, Bulgarian b. vowels, sonorants English, Gonja c. vowels, sonorants, obstruents Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber (46) σ σ σ RgU RgU RgU µ µ µ a l d Berber Berber Berber English English Bulgarian (47) Sets of moraic segments a. vowels Khalkha Mongolian, Yindiµ b. vowels, sonorants Lithuanian, Tiv c. vowels, sonorants, obstruents English, Latin, Cairene Arabic (48) σ σ σ Rgu Rgu Rgu µ µ µ µ µ µ a i a l a d English English English Lithuanian Lithuanian Khalkha Mongolian Jespersen: In every group of sounds there are just as many syllables as there are clear relative peaks of sonority. Sonority Sequencing Principle: Between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, only sounds of higher sonority rank are permitted. Syllable Contact Law (some languages show effects of this, not all) In any sequence C a.c b, there is a preference for C a to exceed C b in sonority. Optimality Theory Optimality Theory. Grammar is a set of ordered constraints
(49) NO-EPENTHESIS ( no adding consonants or vowels ) Faithfulness NO-DELETION ( no deleting consonants or vowels ) (50) ONSET: *[ σ V ( syllables must start with a consonant ) Markedness NO-CODA: * V] σ ( syllables must not end with a consonant ) Underlying representation: /kæt/ kæt violates NO-CODA, satisfies ONSET, satisfies NO-EP and NO-DEL. kæ satisfies NO-CODA, ONSET, and NO-EP, but violates NO-DEL. kæt\ satisfies NO-CODA, ONSET, and NO-DEL, but violates NO-EP. The idea of Optimality Theory: Which one you say is a function of which constraints are more important in your language. Underlying form stored in your lexicon Constraints, in order. Check the first one first, anything that survives is checked on the second, /kæt/ NO-CODA ONSET NO-DEL NO-EP kæt * kæ * kæt\ * The hand points to the winner Possible ways you could pronounce it ( candidates ) Capturing universals in Optimality Theory Re-ranking these constraints (24 possibilities) only yields 7 patterns. We can get CV languages, (C)V language, CV(C) languages, (C)V(C) languages No re-ordering of the constraints would yield: V only VC only V(C) only CVC only Universal Grammar in Optimality Theory: Constraints are universal (all languages have them this is UG ) Grammars differ only in the ranking of the constraints across languages. The child s task during acquisition is to acquire the rankings. Prosodic structure and word stress (5) a. word word F S F W F σ σ σ σ cón tèst tém pest The intuition about stress in words is that it indicates groupings of syllables (the feet), each group having a prominent syllable (a head). Basic parameters of word stress: Boundedness: Foot dominance: Feet in a language can either be bounded (at most 2 syllables), or unbounded (any number of syllables). The side of the foot where the head is (the strong element). Bounded left-dominant feet are trochees (X.), bounded right-headed feed are iambs (. X) Quantity sensitivity: Whether feet count moras separately or just look at syllables. Heavy Q-insensitive (no difference between H and L) Light Q-sensitive (H can t be in a weak position of a foot) Q-determined (every foot needs to dominate an H) Iterativity Directionality Some crosslinguistic preferences Whether each word has one foot or repeating feet Whether the first foot is at the beginning or the end of the word. (52) Stressability: Words have to be big enough to carry a stress. (Usually a long syllable [two moras] or a two-syllable foot). (5) Demarcation: Words should have stress near the edge. (Primary stress is usually first, last, or penultimate) (54) Rhythm: Bounded. Avoiding lapses and clashes (alternating stress)
Prosodic structure: PrWd Elements of prosodic structure are analogous to elements of syntactic Foot structure when describing the structure of sentences. σ µ x PrWd Ft Ft σ σ σ µ µ µ µ p í s k % l a n It rains so hard that it is dark or hard to see (Passamaquoddy) Question formation A (rough) typology of (overt) wh-movement wh-movement Move a single wh-word Move all wh-words (English, French, ) (Bulgarian, Polish, ) wh-in-situ Move no wh-words (Chinese, Japanese, ) This suggests that in Czech, one wh-word goes to SpecCP (like in English), and the rest adjoin to IP like adverbs: (56) CP Spec C kdo C IP (ho) ru Adv IP rychle ru co IP ru komu IP Parm Q: Parm W: Parm I: English: [+Q W I] Bulgarian: [+Q +W I] Japanese: [ Q W?I] Czech: [+Q +W +I] Question needs a wh-word in SpecCP All wh-words must be in front (near C SpecCP or the edge of IP) Whether wh-words can attach to IP Commonly though that to write the meaning of a wh-questions, you must have an operator ( For which x ) binding a variable (x). Movement yields an operator-variable structure. In English, the one wh-word goes into SpecCP. In Bulgarian, the wh-words all scrunch into a single SpecCP (evidence: nothing can come between wh-words in the front). (55) CP Spec C koj kogo C IP ru Adv IP pruv... Another kind of multiple wh-fronting language: Czech, where all wh-words move to the front, but the first one seems to be separate from the others (things can come between the first and the rest, e.g., parentheticals). (57) What i did John buy t i? ( For what value of x is it true that John bought x? ) So, there s a big question now: If If the meaning of a question requires movement and Questions mean basically the same thing in all languages but Some languages don t move some/all of the question words then How do those questions mean what a question means? The answer to this which is commonly adopted is this: The structure of the grammar: DS phrase structure rules movement rules surface structure (abstract) SS more movement rules phonetic form PF LF logical form (meaning)
The underlying structure of a sentence (e.g., John bought what) is DS. The meaning of a sentence is represented as LF. The pronunciation of a sentence is represented as PF. The rule which takes a wh-word to the front of the sentence is a movement rule. In English, one wh-word moves between DS and SS, so we pronounce it first. and any other wh-words move between SS and LF after we ve committed to a pronunciation. It is hidden (covert) movement. The idea is that: Since the meaning of a question (in any language) requires wh-words to move. In all languages, all wh-words move just in some languages you can t see it. So a revised typology is: Parm Q: Question needs a wh-word in SpecCP by SS Parm W: The point when all wh-words need to be in front: SS or LF. Parm I: Whether wh-words can attach to IP English: [+Q W:LF I] Bulgarian: [+Q W:SS I] Japanese: [ Q W:LF?I] Czech: [+Q W:SS +I] Some languages appear to fall somewhere in the middle though [W:, Q: ±] (58) a. Qu a-t-il donné à qui? French what has-he given to whom What did he give to whom? b. Il a donné quoi à qui? He has given what to whom What did he give to whom? Wh-islands and successive cyclicity Wh-words stop in each CP along the way from their underlying position to SpecCP: (59) Which way did you say [ CP that Bill went ] Irish English gives us evidence in what all questions, all can be left behind in any of the positions occupied by the wh-phrase. (60) a. b. What all did he say that he wanted to buy? What did he say all that he wanted to buy? West Ulster English c. What did he say that he wanted all to buy? d. What did he say that he wanted to buy all? US English also gives us evidence: If SpecCP is filled with whether, a moving wh-word can t stop there and the result is bad: (6) a. Which way did you say (that) Bill went? b. I wonder which way Bill went. c. I wonder whether Bill went East. d. * Which way do you wonder whether Bill went? In Bulgarian, we know that several wh-words can pack into SpecCP at once and sentences like (6d) are fine (since one wh-word in SpecCP doesn t make it full ). In Czech (like English, only one thing fits in SpecCP), the whether-type effect appears. A language parameter: ±MSC:Whether a language allows multiple elements in SpecCP. (This may not be independent of Parm I from before) Bulgarian: +MSC English: MSC Czech: MSC A universal order of adverbs A strict ordering restriction on adverbs one has to come before another. The same hierarchy appears in Italian, French, Norwegian, Serbo-Croatian, Hebrew, Chinese, Albanian, The English hierarchy is (partially) as given in the box below. frankly > fortunately > evidently > probably > now > perhaps > wisely > usually > already > no longer > always > completely > well Synthesized hierarchy: sincerely/truly/honestly (un)fortunately/unluckily evidently probably now perhaps necessarily intelligently/wisely usually often already no longer always continuously/just almost completely well quickly again
Italian:The verb can appear between any two adverbs. This means there needs to be a place for the verb to move to. This means we need a functional head for every adverb position. Other languages seem to have overt morphemes that correspond to these positions. (62) ku pwun-i cap-hi-si-ess-ess-keyss-sup-ti-kka? Korean that person-nom catch-pass-hon-ant-past-epistem-hon-evid-q Did you feel that he had been caught? Languages seem to stick to this hierarchy, across languages... Universal Spec-head-complement order? Linear Correspondence Axiom (Essentially): X-bar structures can only be like this: Spec-Head-Complement (6) XP SPEC X X COMPLEMENT HEAD (64) a. CP C Spec C C IP that # Mary book bought b. CP IP i C # Mary book bought C t i that Provides an explanation for: SOV languages do not move wh-words to the front. (In head final languages, C is final, so IP must have moved into SpecCP, filling it up, meaning that wh-words can t move to SpecCP). (Denies the existence of the headedness parameter even SOV languages are underlyingly SVO) Provides an explanation for: Possible orders within NP of noun, demonstrative, numeral, adjective. Underlying order (universally): Dem Num Adj N Orders which come from N moving: Dem Num [N] i Adj t i Dem [N] i Num Adj t i [N] i Dem Num Adj t i Other options; moving larger constituents: Dem N Adj Num (comes from second movement: Dem [N Adj] i Num t i ) N Adj Num Dem (comes from third movement: [N Adj Num] i Dem t i ) Point: No difference in the possible orders between prepositional and postpositional languages. If there were a headedness parameter, we would predict more orders than we actually see. SOV languages Japanese John-ga [ Mary-ga hon-o katta to] omotteiru John-NOM Mary-NOM book-acc bought that thinks John thinks that Mary bought a book