1 / 41

The role of historical corpora in the reconstruction of proto-syntax

The role of historical corpora in the reconstruction of proto-syntax. Katalin É. Kiss Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy , and Pázmány Péter Catholic University. Can proto-syntax be reconstructed ?. Lightfoot (2002): No, because

ruby
Download Presentation

The role of historical corpora in the reconstruction of proto-syntax

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of historicalcorporainthereconstruction of proto-syntax Katalin É. Kiss Research Institute forLinguistics of theHungarianAcademy, and Pázmány Péter Catholic University

  2. Canproto-syntax be reconstructed? Lightfoot (2002): No, because • there is no theory of linguisticchange, aslinguisticchange is chaotic; • thecomparativemethod is onlyapplicableinthereconstruction of proto-lexemes.

  3. Campbell and Harris (2002), Pires and Thomason (2008), A. Harris (2008), etc.: yes, onthebasis of regularsyntacticcorrespondences of cognatesinrelatedlanguages, + directionalitygeneralizations. Von Mengden: Yes, onthebasis of implicationaluniversals, and byundoinggrammaticalization.

  4. Howtoidentifysyntacticcognates? Roberts & Roussou (2003), Longobardi (2003): Syntacticcognates: theparametricvalues of UniversalGrammar. Alice Harris (2008): Onthebasis of functional, distributional and phonologicalcorrespondence.

  5. A problemforestablishingUralicsyntacticcorrespondencesets: Hungarian and itsclosestsisters (theOb-Ugriclanguages ) parted 3000-4000 yearsago; theyaretoo far. Hungariandocumentsonlysince 1192-95. Proposal: obtainingcognatesforcomparison byextendingbackwardsthe ʃ curves of linguisticchangesattestedinthedocumentedhistory of Hungarian.

  6. The ʃ curve of linguisticchanges: The progress of a linguisticinnovation over timeformsan ʃ-curve (Osgood & Sebeok 1954, Weinrech, Labov & Herzog 1965, etc.) The disappearingvariant (ʅ) representstheprevalentvariant of the previous, undocumented phase of the language.

  7. ObtainingevidenceaboutProto-Ugric and earlyProto-Hungariansyntax : ReconstructinglateProto-Hungarianstructuresbythebackwardextension of ʃ-curves of linguisticchangesattestedinthedocumentedhistory of Hungarian; findingcognatesinreconstructedlateProto-Hungarian and inpresent-dayOb-Ugric (Vogul and Ostyak). .

  8. A casestudy: Reconstructingthewordorder of Proto-Hungarian Hungarian has been Top Foc V X* throughoutitsdocumentedhistory (since 1192-95). E.g. [TopPozgimilsneki[FPvvlkeseruvk[VPuola[ti vize] tk]]] thefruit-datsobitterwasjuice-3sg ’ofthefruit, sobitterwasthejuice’   (FuneralSermon 1192-95)

  9. ArgumentsthatProto-HungarianwasSOV:DecliningOVpatterns, spreadingVOpatternsinthehistorical corpus DecliningS-curves: • DisappearingSOVclausetypes • Decreasingpreheadparticipialrelatives • Decreasingparticipialadverbialclauses • Decreasinginfinitivalcomplementclauses • Disappearingclause-finalcomplementizer • DisappearingV-adjoinednegativeparticle • DisappearingV-Auxiliaryorder

  10. The decliningstructures must haveprevailedinProto-Hungarian. Theyconvergewithcorrespondingstructures of Vogul and Ostyak -> They must representUgricheritage.

  11. 1. DisappearingSOVclausetypes Ostyak and more distantsisterlanguages: StrictlySOVorder; object is unmarked, e.g.: (1) Juwanjik-ə-lpilnaxo:p we:r-s-ə-ŋən. Ivan son-3sgwithboatmake-past-ep-3d ‛Ivan made a boatwithhisson.’ (2)(luw) juwanre:sk-ə-s he Ivan hit-ep-past.3sg ’He hit Ivan.’ (Nikolaeva 1999)

  12. SOVnon-finiteclauseswith an unmarkedobjectin Old Hungarian: Infinitivalclauses: (3) ne fordo’l’lon mˉg ǫ kǫntosǫfeluènninotturn-SUBJ-3SGback he gown-3SG-øput.on-INF ‘he shouldnotturn back toputonhisgown’(Munich C. a.1416) Presentparticipialclauses: (4) Kirallèuèliirokat kingletters-3SG-øwriting-PL-ACC ‘thosewritingtheking’sletters’ (Vienna C. a.1416)

  13. SOVnon-finiteclauseswith an unmarkedobjectin Old Hungarian: Perfectparticipialclauses (5) Agyad meg ymmarbewnezantnak give-IMP back nowsin-3SG-ørepented-DAT ‘giveit back nowtothatrepentedhis sin’ (Jókai C. a.1370) Predicativeparticipialclauses (6) ky zent fferenczetlewlteualaegyhazfeprette whoStFrancis-ACCfoundchurch-NOMsweeping ‘whofoundSt Francis sweepingthechurch’ (Jókai C. a.1370)

  14. SOVnon-finiteclauseswith an unmarkedobjectin Old Hungarian: Adverbialparticipialclauses (7) kyhaluanlegottan el mene what-øhearingimmediatelyawaywent ‘whichhavingheard, he immediatelywent away’ (Jókai C. a. 1370)

  15. WhywasSOVwith an unmarkedobjectpreservedinnon-finiteclauses? • BecauseUgriclanguages displayed/display differentialobject marking, withonlytopicalobjectsmarked -> topic marking onlyin main clauses • Lightfoot (1991)’s degree-0learnability: childrenidentify/reanalyzethegrammar of theirmothertongueonthebasis of rootclauses -> embeddedclausesare more conservative

  16. The fastdecline of unmarkedobjects: Codexes: tokensunmarkedOstoken/unm.O Jókai C. a1370: 22 733 42 540 MunichC. a1416: 69 589 78 892 Apor C. a1416: 22 118 18 1382 ViennaC. a1416: 54 423 24 2268 JordánszkyC. a. 1516: 200 185 16 12 511

  17. The decreasingproportion of unmarkedobjects

  18. Accusative marking  VOorder: (8) Munich C. (a.1416) Matthew 4,20: Azoc [legottanhaloiocmeghaguā] kǫuetecǫtet theyimmediatelynet-3PL-øleavingfollowedhim ‘Leavingtheir net immediately, theyfollowedhim’ (9) Jordánszky C. (a.1516): Azok kedyg [legottanel hagywanhaloyokat] theyhoweverimmediatelyoffleavingnet-3PL-ACC es hayoyokat] kóweteekhewtet and boat-3PL-ACCfollowedhim

  19. FossilizedOVstructureswithunmarked O in Modern Hungarian: (10) a. szava tartó ember word-3SG-økeeping man ‘a man keepinghisword’ Mi tévő legyek? what-ødoingbe-1SG ‘Whatshall I be doing?’ b. esze vesztett ember, mind-3SG-ølost ‘ man ‘a man havinglosthis mind’ c. kalap levéve hat-øoff-taking ‘takingoffthe hat’

  20. 2. Decreasingparticipialrelatives WALS: SOV -> preheadrelatives; gaprelativization Ostyak: non-finitepreheadrelatives (11) [(mä) tini-m-äm] loγ I sell-PastPart-1SGhorse ‘thehorsewhich I sold’ (12) [Naŋmo:sməlt-əm] o:xa:r-e:n jel an man-l youwound-PastPartfox-2SG far notgo-Pr.3SG ’Thefoxwhichyouwoundeddoesnot go far.’

  21. Old Hungarianparticipialrelatives (13) Es ueǵed az neko̗d zo̗rzo̗ttemCoronat and taketheyou-DATobtain-PP-1SGcrown-ACC ‘and takethecrownwhich I obtainedforyou’ (Kazinczy C. 1526)

  22. Decreasing of gaprelativization;increasingnumber of relativepronouns Number of therelativepronounswho, what, whichin St. Matthew’sGospel: Munich C. (a. 1416): 225 Jordánszky C. (a. 1516): 314 Károli Bible (1590): 330

  23. Semi-productivegaprelativizationin Modern Hungarian: (14)a. az[anyám sütötte] kenyér themother-1SGbaked-PastPart-3SGbread ‘thebreadwhichmymotherbaked’ b. egy [tanárok vezette] vetélkedő a teachersadminister-PastPart-3SGquiz ‘a quizwhichteachersadministered’ Onlylexicalsubject, and 3SGagreement.

  24. 3. Decreasingnon-finiteadverbialclauses WALS: SOV -> nonfiniteadverbialclauses Ostyak: onlynon-finitesubordination (15) [Kase:-m man-ti jupina] li-tipit-l-əm pain-1SGgo-PARTaftereat-INFstart-PRES-1SG ‘I start eatingaftermypainstops.’

  25. Hawkins’s (2001) performance theory of wordorder The ConstituentRecognition Domain for a phrasalmothernodeconsists of theset of nodesthatareminimallyneededtorecognizeitscategory, and itsmajor constituents. OptimallinearordersminimizetheConstituentRecognition Domain. The shortestrecognitiondomainfora matrix VP with a clausalcomplementcontainsthematrixverb and thesubordinator. Inan SOVsentence, thisdomain is shortestifthesubordinator is a participialsuffixontheembeddedverb, left-adjacenttothematrixverb.

  26. Old Hungarian: (16) [Nap kedigfelkèluē] meg hèuọlėnc suncoordrisingPrtburned-past-3sg ’Thesunhavingrisen, theyburned.’ (Munich C. a. 1416) MiddleHungarian: (17) Mykoron az nap fel tamadotwolna, whenthesunuprise-perf-3sgbe-past meg swteewket prtburn-past.3sgthem ’Whenthesun had risen, itburnedthem.’ (Gábor Pesthi, Novum Testamentum 1536)

  27. Decreasingnumber of non-finiteadverbialclauses Number of -ván/vén clausesinStMatthew: • Munich C. a. 1416: 486 • Jordánszky C. a. 1516: 322 • Károli Bible 1590: 286

  28. 4. Decreasinginfinitivalclauses Ostyak: finitecomplementclausesonlyintheRussifiedspeech of theyoung. (18) [porniŋimijuw-əm] wa:n-mantaj-l-əlli Por womancome-PastPsee-PARThave-Pr-3SG ‘Shesawthat a Por womancame.’ Infinitiveswith PRO subject: (19) luw-e:l [ø man-ti] mo:sl he-ACCleave-INFneed-Pr3SG ‘He has toleave.’

  29. Old H: a muchlargerset of Vstaking an infinitiveclausethaninMiddle/Mod.H CompareMatthew 14,19: (20) És mikor parancsolt volna az gyölekezetnek and whenorderedAUXthecrowd-DAT ‘And when he orderedthecrowd’ a. leülni az szénán (Munich C. a1416) down-sit-INFthegrass-on b. hogy le ülnénec az füuen(Károli Bible 1590) that down sit-SUBJ-3PLthegrass-on

  30. 5. Disappearingclause-finalinterrogativeparticle SOV Vogul and Ostyak: clause-finalinterrogativeparticle (21)a. titχujew-ä here sleep.1pl-q ’Dowesleep here?’ (Vogul) b. nèηemtǒttεù.tot-á wife-1sgtherewas-q ’Wasmywifethere?’ (Ostyak)

  31. -e: a cognateinterrogativeparticlein Old/Modern Hungarian Old Hungarian: clause-finalorV-adjoined-e: (22) Nemdèkètvèrèbecadatnaceģfelpenzenė? nottwosparrowsgive-pass-3plhalfcoin-onq ’Arenottwosparrowssoldfor a farthing?’ (Munich C., Matthew 10,29) (23) Il’l’esvag ėtè? Elias areqyou ’Areyou Elias?’ (Munich C., John 1,21)

  32. Middle/Mod. Hungarian: -eadjoinedtothe V (orto a preverbalelement) Jordánszky C. (a 1516) (24) Nem de ket verebek adatnak ee nottwosparrowsgive-pass-3plq eǵffelpenzen? halfcoin-on (25) yllyesvagy eethe? Elias areq you

  33. 6. DisappearingV-adjoinednegativeparticle Ostyak: pre-Vnegativeparticle (26) Taminaŋke:se:-nant u:-l thisyouknife-2SGNEGbe-Pr.3SG ‘This is notyourknife.’ (27) Niŋ ne:ŋxiantaj-əl woman man NEGhave-Pr.3SG

  34. Old Hungarian: twonegativeconstructions • PRTNEG V – withNEGleft-adjoinedto V: (28) Rázódott nádat meg nem szeg (Munich C.) bruisedreed-ACCPRTnotbreaks ‘A bruised reed shall he not break’ (ii) NEG V … PRT– with V raisedtoNEG: (29) És nem esmeré meg őtet(Munich C.) and notknewPRTher ‘And knewhernot’

  35. Evidence of V-to-NEGmovementintheinnovativepattern: (30) [NegPnem fyzetteli[VP telyesseguel[VP megti]]] notpaidcompletelyup ’…youhavenotpaidupcompletely’ (Jókai C.)

  36. The increasingproportion of Neg V …PRTinthe Modern Hungarianperiod(Gugán 2007)

  37. 7. DisappearingV-Auxiliaryorder Old Hungariancomplextenseswith a temporalaux. arecognatewith Udmurt complextenses (Udmurt: a sisterlanguage. Hungarians and Udmurtsshared a habitatin 600-700 AD) Hun.men-niUd.mini-ni ‘go-INF’ megy-ekmini-sko ‘go-Pr.1SG’ megy-ekvalamini-skoval ‘go-PastCont.1SG’ ment-emmin-em ‘go-PrPerf.1SG’ men-t-emvalamin-emval ‘go-PastPerf.1SG’

  38. Old Hungarian: complextenses, strictV-Auxorder (31) És imé az czillag, mellyetláttacvala and lothestarwhich-ACCsee-PERF.3PLbe-PAST nap keleten, elöttöcmégyenvala east-inbefore.themgo-3SGbe-PAST ‘And, lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, wasgoing before them’

  39. Disappearingtemporalauxiliary; presentperfectreinterpretedaspast (32) És íme, a csillag, amelyet napkeleten and lothestarwhich-ACCeast-in láttak, előttük haladt, see-PAST.3PLbefore.themprocede-PAST-3SG (Neovulgata 1969)

  40. Survivingauxiliaries: Aux-Vorderintheunmarkedcase (33) hogy ehsegtewl sok emberekfognak meg halny thathunger-frommanypeplewill-3plprt die ’thatmanypeoplewill die fromhunger’ (Jókai C. a. 1370)

  41. Summary Ostyak and Hungarianaretoofaretocontaincognatesto be compared. The backwardextension of ʃ-curvescreatedonthebasis of historicalcorporamakesitpossibletoreconstructlateProto-Hungariansyntax. LateProto-Hungarian and present-dayOstyakarecloseenoughtoreconstructsyntacticproperties of theirsharedancester.

More Related