1 / 34

A syntactic universal and how to explain it

A syntactic universal and how to explain it. Michelle Sheehan Anders Holmberg Laura Bailey CRiLLS, Newcastle University Newcastle/Northumbria away day 16 th Sep 2010. The title of our project: Structure and Linearization in Disharmonic Word Orders.

blairn
Download Presentation

A syntactic universal and how to explain it

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. A syntactic universal and how to explain it Michelle Sheehan Anders Holmberg Laura Bailey CRiLLS, Newcastle University Newcastle/Northumbria away day 16th Sep 2010

  2. The title of our project:Structure and Linearization in Disharmonic Word Orders • A joint project between University of Cambridge (Ian Roberts, Theresa Biberauer) and Newcastle (Anders Holmberg, Michelle Sheehan, Laura Bailey). • Funded by the AHRC (a standard research grant, plus a PhD grant for Laura Bailey). • Started in 2007.

  3. Head-initial and head-final order • The languages of the world are standardly classified according to whether they have predominantly head-initial or head-final word order. Spanish Hindi leyó[un libro][kitaab] parhii read a book book read en[la mesa] [mez] par on the table table on ha[leído un libro][kitaabparhii] hai has read a book book read is

  4. Harmony A grammar is harmonic when all phrase types are head-initial or all phrase types are head-final. TP 3 TvP 3 v VP 3 V DP 4 TP 3 vP T 3 VP v 3 DP V 4 Head-final Head-initial

  5. The head parameter • X-bar theory – universal syntactic template associated with a parameter: • A head X precedes/follows its complement XP 2 X comp XP 2 comp X 5

  6. Disharmony • Though most languages are predominantly head-initial or head-final, hardly any languages are fully harmonic. • So the head parameter must be relativised to categories. TP 3 T vP 3 VP v 3 DP V 4 Head-final VP, vP Head-initial TP

  7. (Dis)harmonic structures We can talk about harmonic/disharmonic structures. TP 3 T vP 3 VP v 3 DP V 4 TP 3 TvP 3 v VP 3 V DP 4 TP 3 vP T 3 VP v 3 DP V 4 Harmonic head-final vP, Disharmonic TP Harmonic head-initial TP Harmonic head-final TP

  8. A constraint on disharmonic structures • Holmberg (2000) found that some disharmonic structures are common, while other disharmonic structures are extremely rare, or possibly nonexistent. The Final over Final Constraint (FOFC): A head-final phrase cannot immediately dominate a head- initial phrase.

  9. FOFC data 1 • *[V O] Aux in Finnish: (a) Milloin Jussi olisi [VP kirjoittanutromaanin]? Aux [V O] when Jussi would-have written novel (b)Milloin Jussi olisi [VP romaaninkirjoittanut]? Aux[O V] when Jussi would-have novel written (c) Milloin Jussi [VP romaaninkirjoittanut]olisi? [O V] Aux when Jussi novel written would-have ‘When would Jussi have written a novel?’ (d) * Milloin Jussikirjoittanutromaaninolisi? * [V O]Aux when Jussi written novel would-have ‘When would Jussi have written a novel?’

  10. FOFC data 1 * ...kirjoittanutromaanin olisi? written novel-def would-have * AuxP 3 VPAux 3 VDP

  11. FOFC data 2 Among the Germanic languages, past and present, all combinations of Auxiliary, Verb, and Object are found: Aux-V-O The harmonic orders: Common O-V-Aux Aux-O-V O-Aux-V Less common V-Aux-O V-O-Aux The FOFC-violating order: Nonexistent.

  12. FOFC data 3: VO and final C The following is a well established universal: • Among languages with OV order, some have final complementisers, others have initial complementisers. • Among languages with VO order, none have final complementisers. *V-O ... C (i) ...[ki [Mona [kitaabparhii] hai]][Hindi] ...that Mona book read.F is (ii) ...[Hanako -gahon-okaitato]  [Japanese] Hanako-nom  book-acc  wrote  that     ‘...that Hanako wrote a book’ 

  13. FOFC data 3: VO and final C Assuming that a finite sentence is made up of (at least) the following heads: CP 3 C TP 3 T VP 3 V ...

  14. FOFC data 3: VO and final C (a) * TP 3 VPT 3 VNP (b) * CP 3 TPC 3 TVP FOFC rules out a final T over VO order. It also rules out a final C over T-VP order. Therefore it rules out a final C over VO indirectly.

  15. How to avoid violating FOFC if you have OV order and an initial C In languages which have OV order and clauses with an initial complementiser the embedded clause is ‘extraposed’. German: (a) Er hat [alles was ich sage] verstanden. he has all that I say understood (b) Er hat verstanden [dass man ihmliebt]. he has understood that you him love (c) *Er hat [dass man ihmliebt] verstanden. he has that you him love understood This holds true of all languages which have OV order and finite embedded clauses with initial C.

  16. Other FOFC effects *[Q TP] C (Biberauer, Sheehan & Newton 2010) *[Asp V] T(Julien 2002, 2007) *[N PP] P (Holmberg 2000) *[Num N] Dem (Cinque 2005)

  17. FOFC and head-finality • FOFC: A head-final phrase cannot immediately dominate a head-initial phrase (while a head-initial phrase can immediately dominate either a head-initial or a head-final phrase). • So head-final order is more constrained, in that sense more marked. • The head-parameter alone does not have anything to say about this asymmetry. • But there is a theory of word order which predicts head-final orders to be more marked than head-initial orders...

  18. The Linear Correspondence Axiom • Syntactic rules derive hierarchic structures, not linear strings. • The LCA: asymmetric c-command relations determine linear order. • The LCA:a precedes b if and only if a asymmetrically c-commands b, or a is contained in a phrase g which asymmetrically c-commands b. • The core idea of the LCA is that material which is higher should precede material which is lower in a structure. • This is why the subject always precedes the predicate (in unmarked word orders). TP 3 subject TP 3 T VP 3 V Object

  19. Towards an account of FOFC • An account of FOFC emerges if the LCA is taken to regulate disharmonic structures. • In (a), Aux precedes and asymmetrically c-commands V and O. • In (b), Aux follows V and O but still asymmetrically c-commands them. AuxP (a) 3 AuxVP 3 Obj V * AuxP (b) 3 VP Aux 3 VObj

  20. Harmonic structures • But in (c), a harmonic head-final order, Aux follows V and O and still asymmetrically c-commands them. • Why would the LCA rule out (b) but not (c)? AuxP (c) 3 VP Aux 3 Obj V * AuxP (b) 3 VP Aux 3 VObj

  21. Implications • In harmonic head-final structures, the LCA appears not to hold. • A common solution is to assume that head-final structures have a different syntax (different c-command relations) from head-initial structures. • An alternative (proposed here) is that harmonic structures are not subject to the LCA (for principled reasons).

  22. The LCA as a last resort • Head parameter: at PF a head precedes/follows the head it selects (cf. Richards 2004) • Last Resort LCA: If no order is defined (even transitively) between X and Y via head parameters, then if X asymmetrically c-commands Y then X precedes Y. • Harmonic combinations of heads will not require the LCA (A>B, B>C = A>B>C) • Only disharmonic combinations (and specifiers) will require the LCA.

  23. A PF-account of FOFC AuxP (i) 3 AuxPVP 3 VPObj Aux>V>Obj (by PF head parameters) AuxP (ii) 3 VP AuxF 3 Obj VF Obj>V>Aux (by PF head parameters) Harmonic AuxP (iv) 3 VP AuxF 3 VP Obj AuxP (iii) 3 AuxPVP 3 Obj VF Obj>V, Aux>V (by PF head parameters) & Aux>Obj (by LCA) = Aux>Obj>V Disharmonic V>Obj, V>Aux (by PF head parameters) & Aux>Obj (by LCA) = V>Aux>Obj NOT *V>Obj>Aux V-Aux-Obj is an attested order

  24. Extraposition (i) þæt ænig mon atellanmægeealne þone demm that any man relate can all the misery ‘... that any man can relate all the misery ...’ [Old English, Pintzuk 2005: 13 (coorosiu,Or_2:8.52.6.1011)] (ii) Milloin Jussi kirjoittanutolisiromaanin?            When Jussi written would-have a novel ‘When would Jussi have written a novel?’ [Finnish] • [[head-complement]head] structures are linearised discontinuously, giving rise to ‘extraposition’.

  25. An exception to FOFC • Particles are consistently badly-behaved with respect to FOFC. • Here we focus on question particles, but the same can be said of other types, such as negative particles, focus particles, and discourse particles. • ‘Particles’ are function words which are invariant (uninflected) and acategorial (not verbal, nominal, or prepositional).

  26. Q-particles and FOFC • Question particles very often appear finally with VO order: Lao (Tai-Kadai, Laos, Thailand) saam3 khon2 taaj3bòò3? three person die Q ‘Is it the case that three people died?’ (Enfield 2007: 41) Futuna-Aniwa (Austronesian, Vanuatu) akoe no hsiasaikamo jikai? you tnscatch.aart fish or not ‘Did you catch a fish or not?’ (Dougherty 1983: 133)

  27. Q-particles and FOFC • Assuming that they are heads in the CP, final Q-particles with VO violate FOFC by transitivity: CP CP 2 2 TP CQ TP CQ 2 2 T VP VP T 2 2 V O V O

  28. Particles are not true heads • FOFC is a constraint on disharmonic combinations of heads. • Final Q-particles may well not be heads at all: • They are frequently optional. • They are not subordinators (complementisers) • They are frequently identical to the disjunction or negation, indicating a relation to tag questions.

  29. Final Q-particles are optional • Intonation marks the question, and the particle is optional: Tigak (Austronesian, Papua New Guinea) vogitapuok angina, (la)? fut he return todayQ ‘Will he return today?’ (Beaumont 1979: 35) Pero (Afro-Asiatic, Nigeria) wórìkpéemùn-(á)? Wori woman-Q ‘Is Wori a woman?’ (i.e. is she of marriageable age?) (Frajzyngier 1988: 214)

  30. Final Q-particles are not subordinators • Final Q-particles are not permitted to mark embedded questions; another complementiser is usually required: Mupun (Afro-Asiatic, Nigeria) a man nalep-e you know Nalep-Q ‘Do you know Nalep?’ n-tal pə wur a nə ket gwar kat kə nalep-e I-ask PREP him COP that if he meet PREP Nalep-Q ‘I asked him whether he met Nalep.’ (Frajzyngier 1993: 360, 364)

  31. Final Q-particles are not subordinators • Or a final main-clause particle moves to initial position in embedded questions: YosondúaMixtec (Oto-Manguean, Mexico): káhnūtɨ̄ nú big it.aml Q ‘Is it (the animal) big?’ kīhīnnándéhénútunīhináīso go I look ifNEG get I rabbit ‘I’ll go see if I can’t get a rabbit.’ (Farris 1992: 36, 42)

  32. Final Q-particles are tags • Many final Q-particles resemble ‘or’ or ‘not’, or both: Mangap-Mbula (Austronesian, Papua New Guinea) nikoi-rao, somsom heUC 3sg-adequate or not ‘Will he be adequate or (will he) not?’ (Buganhagen 1995: 132) Jabêm (Austronesian, Papua New Guinea) tamamgêmêŋmèmasi father-your he-cameor none ‘Has your father come?’ (Dempwolff 2005: 75) • They may be instances of the generalised use of a tag question, not part of the clause proper.

  33. Conclusions • FOFC appears to be a syntactic universal. • It holds for all types of phrases. • Its explanation is related to the independently motivated Linear Correspondence Axiom. • Apparent counter-examples to FOFC involving particles do not involve heads.

  34. References • Beaumont, C.H. 1979. The Tigak language of New Ireland. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. • Buganhagen, R. D. 1995. A grammar of Mangap-Mbula: An Austronesian language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. • Dempwolff, O. 2005. Otto Dempwolff's grammar of the Jabêm language in New Guinea, translated and edited by Joel Bradshaw and FranciscCzobor. Honolulu: University of Hawai'I Press. • Dougherty, J.W.D. 1983. West Futuna-Aniwa: an introduction to a Polynesian Outlier language. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. • Enfield, N.J. 2007. A grammar of Lao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. • Farris, E.R. 1992. Yosondúa. In Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages, eds. C.H. Bradley and B.E.Hollenbach, 1-172. Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics. • Frajzyngier, Z. 1988. A grammar of Pero. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. • Frajzyngier, Z. 1993. A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. • Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax: Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

More Related