Cover not available

Article published In: Lexical Issues in the Architecture of the Language Faculty
Edited by Andrea Padovan
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:1] 2020
► pp. 5–29

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Universality and variation in language

The fundamental issues

 | Lund University
Published online: 6 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00013.sir
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.
Article outline
  • 1.The Zero Hypothesis and GEFA
  • 2.Syntactic features are not selected
  • 3.Morphological features are selected
  • 4.Categories, features, parameters, rules – and the case of Gender
  • 5.The syntax-to-PF-morphology metamorphosis
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (71)
References
Adger, D. (2018). The autonomy of syntax. In N. Hornstein, H. Lasnik, P. Patel-Grosz & Charles Yang (Eds.), Syntactic Structures after 60 years: The impact of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics II1 (pp. 153–176). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adger, D., & Svenonius, P. (2011). Features in minimalist syntax. In Cedric Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp. 27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2011). The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In A. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17/2, 89–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2011). Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15/3, 113–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In A. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (2011). On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition. Lingua 1211, 2089–2102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures vol. 31 (pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 361, 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Approaching UG from Below. In H. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). On phases. In R. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Problems of projection. Lingua 1301, 33–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Noam Chomsky UCLA lectures. [URL]
(2019b). Some puzzling foundational issues: The Reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Special Issue. 263–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Cognition, Universal Grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua 1301, 50–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2017). Merge (X, Y) = {X, Y}. In L. Bauke & A. Blühmel (Ed.), Labels and roots (pp. 47–68). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1986). Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 201, 265–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrod, K. (2019). Pronouns, raising and emerging. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1979). The Agreement Hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 151, 203–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2015). Simplest Merge generates set intersection: Implications for complementizer-trace explanation. In S. Epstein, H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Explorations in maximizing syntactic minimization (pp. 175–194). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. (2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 251, 691–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R. (2011). Prelinguistic thought. Language Learning and Development 71, 253–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). How does a language acquire gender markers? In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. III1, Word Structure, 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 201 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 781, 482–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2981, 1569–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, V. (2007). Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 1171, 2077–2105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1992). The philosophy of grammar. With a new introduction and index by James D. McCawley. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press [first published 1924 in London by George Allen and Unwin].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Pesetsky, D. (2011). The Identity Thesis for language and music. [URL]
Kiparsky, P. (2002). Event structure and the perfect. In D. I. Beaver, L. D. Casillas Martínez, B. Z. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Ed.), The construction of meaning (pp. 113–136). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kučerová, I. (2018). ɸ-features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 491, 813–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2016). Agreement at PF: An argument from partial control. Syntax 191, 79–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2006). A minimalist program for parametric linguistics? In H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz, & J. Koster (Ed.), Organizing grammar (pp. 407–414). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter hierarchies & Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction: Parameters in Minimalist Theory. In Th. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 1–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 222–277). Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheehan, M., Biberauer, Th., Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. (2017). The final-over-final condition: A syntactic universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, E. F. (2017). Deriving case, agreement and voice phenomena in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic in a comparative GB approach. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University [republished (1992) in Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 651. 65–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 161, 219–251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement systems (pp. 201–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). On UG and materialization. Linguistic Analysis 371, 367–388.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 431, 191–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Context-linked Grammar. Language Sciences 431, 175–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The Split T Analysis. In K. M. Eide (Ed.), Finiteness matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages (pp. 79–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Gender at the edge. Linguistic Inquiry 501, 723–750. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, P. & Tenny, C. L. (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 11, Syntax and semantics (pp. 315–344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (2007). The syntactic expression of Tense. Lingua 1171, 437–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2007). Interpreting uninterpretable features. Linguistic Analysis 331, 375–413.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. (2014). No syntax saltation in language evolution. Language Sciences 461, 207–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn and break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, J. & Zanuttini, R. (2019) [submitted]. The Syntax of Presentatives: Evidence from English and Italian.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R., Pak, M., & Portner, P. (2012). A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 301, 1231–1274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue