Minimalism and (Applied) Linguistics Elly van Gelderen 16 April 2010

Minimalism and (Applied) Linguistics

Elly van Gelderen

16 April 2010

Outline

• Introduce Minimalism

• What I find fascinating about this program

• Share some applications(especially regarding features and parameters)

Minimalist Program

Factors:

1. Genetic endowment

2. Experience

3. Principles not specific to language

Chomsky (2007: 3)

“(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 FL. 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”.

My aim

Insight in the Faculty of Language

through language change

in particular where features are concerned

And attribute regularity of change to Economy (=third factor)

Language Acquisition and Change:Klima (1965) etc.

Generation n Generation n+1

I-language I-language

E-language E-language

Figure 1: Model of language acquisition (based on Andersen 1973).

Building blocks

Features– semantic– phonological– Formal

Parameters: only in terms of features

- CS

- L2 and L1

A derivation

Selection from the Lexicon:{saw, it, T, Martians}

Merge:

saw Martians[…] […]

Further Merge (EM and IM) and Agree/valuation of the features

Ctd:

(1)

v VP

[i-ACC]

[u-phi] V D

saw Martians

[i-3P]

[u-ACC]

Two interfaces

After merge and agree:

PHON SEM(was PF) (was LF)

Sensorimotor Conceptual-Interpretative

+/- Interpretable Features

Interpretable ones (Person and number on nouns, Tense, Aspect, Mood) are:

Relevant at C-I Interface

But:

Why do languages have uninterpretable features (as well as Edge and EPP?)

L1 (Interpretable)

(1) all gone (Allison 1:8, Bloom 1973)

(2) walk school (Allison 1:8, Bloom 1973)

(3) baby eat cookie (Allison 1:10, Bloom 1973)

(4) sit down right here next truck

(Allison 1:10, Bloom 1973)

(5) horse cow ‘horse and cow’

(Allison 1:10, Bloom 1973)

Late Merge of like

(1) like a cookie (Abe, 3.7.5)

(2) no the monster crashed the planes down like this like that (Abe, 3.7.5)

(3) I wan(t) (t)a show you something # I mean like this thin ? (Abe, 3.7.5)

(4) I feel like having a pet do you? (Abe, 4.8.20)

(5) watch it walks like a person walks. (Abe, 4.9.19)

(6) Daddy # do you teach like you do [//] like how they do in your school? (Abe, 4.10.1)

For: P to C

(1) this picture is mine for myself (Abe 2.7.18)

(2) how long you grow up for a minute

(Abe 2.9.27)

(3) Mom # I'm glad you are making a rug for out in the hall. (Abe 2.8.14)

(4) yeah and I said I was waiting and waiting for you to come and I [/] (Abe, 3.2.1)

What is happening to the features?

(1) Momy you wiping

(Allison 1:8, Bloom 1973)

The child `discovers’ uninterpretable features:

(2) I'm gonna sit on here

(Allison 2:4, Bloom 1973)

What should UG give the learner?

Phi-features `Case'

(for head-marking) (for dependent-marking)

yes no yes no

Korean Korean Navajo

u-F i-F English

English Navajo

Economy?Feature Economy

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

Adjunct Specifier Head affix

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

Let’s look at Language Change:

Specifier > Head:

Demonstrative pronoun that to C Demonstrative pronoun to article

Negative adverb to negation marker

Adverb to aspect marker

PP to C

Full pronoun to agreement

Late Merge and language change:

On, from P to ASP

VP Adverbials > TP/CP Adverbials

Like, from P > C (like I said)

Negative objects to negative markers

Modals: v > ASP > T

Negative verbs to auxiliaries

To: P > ASP > M > C

PP > C (for him to do that ...)

Grammaticalization

Grammaticalization

(1) phrase > word/head > clitic > affix > 0

adjunct > argument > agreement > 0

(2) lexical head > grammatical > 0

Cognitive Economy Principles

help the learner, e.g:

Phrase > head (minimize structure)

Avoid too much movement

XP

Spec X'

X YP

Y …

Head Preference and Late Merge

(1) a. FP b. FP

F … pro F’

pro F …

(2) a. TP b. TP

T VP T VP

might V’ V'V ... V ...

might

Examples of CyclesSubject and Object Agreementdemonstrative/emphatic > pronoun > agreement > zeroCopula Cyclea demonstrative > copula > zerob verb > aspect > copulaCase or Definiteness or DPdemonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zeroNegativea negative argument > negative adverb > negative particle

> zerob verb > aspect > negative > C Future and Aspect AuxiliaryA/P > M > T > C

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

The Negative Cycle

XP

Spec X'

na wiht X YP

not > n’t …

DP Cycle (old way)

a. DP b. DPdem D' D' (=HPP)

D NP D NPart N

c. DP

D'D NP -n>0 N

renewalthrough LMP

or through Feature Economy:

a. DP > b. DP

that D' D'

[i-ps] D NP D NP

[i-loc][u-#] N … the N

[i-phi] [u-phi] [i-phi]

Hence (1) *I saw the

(2) I saw that/those.

Dutch-Afrikaans

(1) die man daar

that man there

(2) Daardie teenstrydighede was egter nie

those contradictions were however not

How are parameters and features relevant to AL

L1 and L2

CS and bilingualism

Text recognition

Some references

Chomsky, Noam 2007. Approaching UG from below, in Uli Sauerland et al. (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gelderen, Elly van to appear. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. OUP.