The Copula Cycle
and semantic features
Elly van Gelderen
13-14 March 2014
Bologna, Copula Workshop
Outline
A.
B.
C.
D.
A little on generative historical syntax
Examples of Grammaticalization and
Linguistic Cycles
Copula Cycles
D, V, and P/A are the sources
Explanations in terms of features
and some challenges.
Model of language acquisition/change
(based on Andersen 1973)
Generation n
UG
+
experience
=
I-language n
Generation n+1
UG
+
experience n
=
I-language n+1
E-language n
+ innovations
E-language n+1
Internal Grammar
Reanalysis is crucial
(1) Paul said, "Starting would be a good thing to
do. How would you like to begin?“ (COCA 2010
Fiction) (cartoon is on Handout)
Minimalism of the1990s-2014
Parameters consist of choices of feature
specifications as the child acquires a
lexicon (Chomsky 2007).
Baker, while disagreeing with this view of
parameters, calls this the Borer-ChomskyConjecture (2008: 156):
"All parameters of variation are attributable
to differences in the features of particular
items (e.g., the functional heads) in the
lexicon."
Types of minimalist features
The semantic features of lexical items
(which have to be cognitively based)
The interpretable ones relevant at the
Conceptual-Intentional interface.
Uninterpretable features act as `glue’ so to
speak to help out merge. For instance,
person and number features (=phifeatures) are interpretable on nouns but
not on verbs.
Semantic and formal overlap:
Chomsky (1995: 230; 381) suggests: "formal
features have semantic correlates and reflect
semantic properties (accusative Case and
transitivity, for example)."
I interpret this: If a language has nouns with
semantic phi-features, the learner will be able to
hypothesize uninterpretable features on another
F (and will be able to bundle them there).
Radford (2000): in acquisition from + > “[S]emantic features ..., are presumably drawn
from a universal ‘alphabet’” (Chomsky 1965:
142), “little is known about this today”.
If semantic features are innate,
we need:
Feature Economy
(a) Utilize semantic features: use them as
for functional categories, i.e. as formal
features (van Gelderen 2008; 2011).
(b) If a specific feature appears more than
once, one of these is interpretable and the
others are uninterpretable (Muysken
2008).
Three factors are relevant to the
Fac of Lg, e.g. Chomsky 2007
(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 the Faculty of
Language. 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"
Economy
Locality = Minimize computational burden
(Ross 1967; Chomsky 1973)
Use a head = Minimize Structure (Head
Preference Principle, van Gelderen 2004)
Late Merge = Minimize computational
burden (van Gelderen 2004, and others)
The latter two can be seen in terms of
Feature Economy
Grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is a unidirectional
change from semantic to formal
(=grammatical) features.
For instance, a verb with semantic features,
such as Old English will with [volition,
expectation, future], can be reanalyzed as
having only the grammatical feature
[future]. And a pronoun can be reanalyzed
as agreement on the verb.
Greenberg’s Demonstrative Cycle
and additions
Demonstrative
[i-phi]/ [loc]
copula
Dem
C
article
[u-phi]
[i-phi]
[u/i-T]
[u-phi]
[loc]
[loc]
Also: degree adverb and tense marker (TibetoBurman) and noun class marker.
Grammaticalization tells us
which features matter
Subject and Object Agreement (Givón)
demonstrative > third ps pronoun > agreement > zero
noun > first and second person > agreement > zero
noun > noun marker > agreement > zero
Copula (Katz)
demonstrative > copula > zero
third person > copula > zero
verb > aspect/mood > copula
Noun (Greenberg)
demonstrative > definite article > ‘Case’ > zero
noun > number/gender > zero
And about processing/economy
Negative (Gardiner/Jespersen
see van der Auwera)
a negative argument > negative adverb > negative
particle > zero
b verb > aspect > negative > C
(negative polarity cycle: Willis)
CP
Adjunct AP/PP > ... > C
Future and Aspect Auxiliary
A/P > M > T (> C)
V > ASP
Grammaticalization = one step
Hopper & Traugott 2003: content item >
grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix.
The loss in phonological content is not a
necessary consequence of the loss of semantic
content (see Kiparsky 2011; Kiparsky &
Condoravdi 2006; Hoeksema 2009).
Kiparsky (2011: 19): “in the development of case,
bleaching is not necessarily tied to
morphological downgrading from postposition to
clitic to suffix.” Instead, unidirectionality is the
defining property of grammaticalization and any
exceptions to the unidirectionality (e.g. the
Spanish inflectional morpheme –nos changing to
a pronoun) are instances of analogical changes.
Renewal (of the lost features)
is the other step
In acknowledging weakening of pronunciation (“un
affaiblissement de la pronunciation”), Meillet (1912:
139) writes that what provokes the start of the
(negative) cycle is the need to speak forcefully (“le
besoin de parler avec force”).
Kiparsky & Condoravdi (2006) similarly suggest
pragmatic and semantic reasons. A simple negative
cannot be emphatic; in order for a negative to be
emphatic, it needs to be reinforced, e.g. by a
minimizer.
Copula cycle, sources
Verbs
Demonstratives
Prepositions/adverbs
= Reanalysis of
location, identity,
and aspect features
English
stative: be, feel, sound, taste, smell, ring, go, look, remain,
stay, seem, appear
inchoative: become, get, turn, grow, wax, fall
aspect/mood features
be
remain, stay
[location]
[duration]
[equal]
seem, appear
[visible]
Old Egyptian (1) > Middle (2)
(1)
a.
rmt p-n
man MS-PROX `this man.’
b.
ntr-w
jp-w
god-P
MP-DIST `those gods.’
(2) ̩tmj-t
pw jmn-t
city-F
be west-F
`The West is a city.’
(Loprieno 1995; 2001)
(3) p
-w
>
pw
[i-3MS]
[distal]
`be’
(Later Egyptian is more complex though; Loprieno
133)
Modern Hebrew: present tense
(4)
(5)
dani (hu) ha-more
Dani he the-teacher
‘Dani is the teacher.’
hu malax
'al jisra'el
‘He ruled
over Israel.’
(Katz 1996: 86)
Arabic and Egyptian Arabic
allahu
huwa
‘lhayyu
God
he
the.living
‘God is the living.’ (Benveniste 1966 [1971: 165])
(7) a. `ana huwwa
l-mas’u:l
1S he
the-responsible
‘I am the responsible.’ (Edwards 2006: 51)
b. il-mushkila
hiyya
T-Talaba
the-problem(FS) she
the-students
`The problem is the students.’
(Edwards 2006: 52)
(6)
Egyptian Arabic
(8) faTma
ma-hiyya:-sh il-mas’u:la
Fatima
NEG-be.3SF-NEG theresponsible
`Fatima is not the one responsible.’
(Edwards 2006: 53)
Old Chinese > Modern
(1)
(2)
Shi shi lie
gui
this is
violent
ghost
‘This is a violent ghost.’
(Peyraube & Wiebusch 1994: 398)
Zhe shi lie gui
‘This is a violent ghost.’
(Mei Ching Ho p.c.)
equation and location
D
>
shi
semantic [proximate]
formal
[i-3S]
P
>
zai
semantic [place]
V
shi
[identity]
V
zai
[location]
McWhorter (2005: 170-1)
The same division occurs in creoles:
Saramaccan, Fongbe
and in: Irish, Vietnamese, Nama
(Khoekhoe), Hawaiian, CiBemba
Demonstrative and adverbial
source of copulas
(1) a. Mi da i
tatá Saramaccan
I
am your father
‘I am your father.’ (McWhorter 1997: 87)
b. Hεn dà dí
Gaamá
he is
the chief
‘He's the chief.’ (McWhorter 1997: 98)
(2) Dí
wómi
dε a
wósu
the woman
is
at
house
`The woman is at home.’ (McWhorter 1997: 88)
Identification/classification
vs location
Saramaccan
equative
–
identificational
da
class membership da/dɛ
locative
dɛ
(McWhorter 2005: 117-8; 171)
NigerianPidgin
be/na
(Mazzoli 2013: 91)
-
de
copula most often with PP, then NP, then AP (Atlas of P &
C: 290)
Galo and Zoque
In Galo, əə functions as topic marker as well as
unmarked copula and derives from a (proximal)
demonstrative.
(1) bɨɨ̀
ŋó-kə ̀
azèn
əə
3S 1S-GEN friend
ART →
3S 1S-GEN friend
COP
‘He is my friend.’ (Post 2007 : 429)
(2) Te’ tuwi kanaŋbüde
Zoque
te’
tuwi 0-kanaŋ=pü=te
DET dog 3B-old=REL=PRED
‘The dog is old’ (Faarlund 2012: 141-2)
Structurally (see HO):
TP
T’
T
[u-phi]
DP
DP
D
that [i-3S]
Croft’s Existential Cycle
Type A
Regular NEG
Type B
NEG + NEG EXIST
Type C
NEG = NEG EXIST
Chinese mei < Old Chinese `not
exist’
(1)
wo mei you shu
I
not exist book
`I don't have a book.’
(2) Yao Shun
ji
mo ...
Yao Shun
since
died
`Since Yao and Shun died, ...' (Mengzi,
Tengwengong B, from Lin 2002: 5)
Early Mandarin
(3)
yu
de wang ren mei kunan, ...
wish PRT died person not-be suffering
`If you wish that the deceased one has no
suffering, ...'
(Dunhuang Bianwen, from Lin 2002: 5-6)
(4) dayi ye
mei you chuan, jiu zou le
chulai
coat
even not PF wear, then walk PF
out
`He didn't even put on his coat and walked out.'
(Rulin Waishi, from Lin 2002: 8)
Indo-European > English
No difference in copula depending on NP, PP, or
AP predicate but mood is marked in the ‘be’
paradigm:
*es (< Dem)
*bheu `grow’ > Latin fui
> Old English `be, become’
*wes `remain, dwell’
*sta ‘stand’ > estar (Spanish), tha (Hindi), tá (Irish)
*wert ‘turn’ > vartate (Sanskrit), wairþan (Gothic),
and weorðan (OE)
OE: s, b, w-roots
infinitive: wesan, beon
imperative (pl in ()): wes(að), beo(ð)
participle: wesende (pres), gebeon (past)
present sg: eam, art, is, beo, bist, beoð
present pl: sind(on), earon, beoð
past: wæs, wære, wæron
subjunctive (pl in ()): wese(n), sie(n), beo(n)
Jost 1909, Campbell 1959, Wischer 2010,
Petré 2013
OE: am, art, is, sind(on)
vs
beo ...
present/current situation
future/generic
ME: am, art, is
vs
beo ...
present Sg
Pl (later are)
Wischer (2010: 222): b-form in OE more frequent
in Pl than Sg;
Petré 2013: 303: b- used in ME for pl indic
Other Gmc s/b/w-distinction is mood-based (mixed
indicative and s- subjunctive)
So GMc mood > OE future > ME plural
Currently: again mood-based, be, been, being
Gmc and Early English > Mod English
Be-copula is marked for mood > mixed
New copulas arise for aspect and mood
Other languages select +/- permanence or
the type of predicate
English:
identifying: can only be be. (Huddleston &
Pullum 271)
classifying: aspectual, modal
location: aspectual
Curme (1935: 66-8) says there are 60
copulas in English and that “no other
language shows such a vigorous growth of
copulas” (67). Visser (1963: 213-9) has
over a 100.
There is some debate as to what counts as
a copula, e.g. Lyons (1977: 471) defines it
as a “meaningless lexeme” and that
means excluding verbs other than ‘be’;
Mazzoli (2013) follows this. I will use a
broader one.
OE copulas, according to Visser 189ff.
aspect
durative: (a/ge/þurh)wunian, (ge)bidan,
belifan, gestandan, warian,
lie, sit, stand (217-8, under quasi)
inchoative:
come, (ge)weorðan, (ge)weaxan
mood
þuncan
ME additions
aspect
cliffian `continue’, (en)dure, dwell, hove, last,
remain, rest, bego, begrow, run, make
hang, play, yawn (quasi in Visser)
become, fall, go, grow, turn, wane
blow, blush, break, fly (quasi in Visser)
mood
appear, (be)seem, prove, show
smell (quasi in Visser)
ModE additions (some obs)
aspect
continue, hold, keep, persevere, persist, stay, wear
befall, commence, get, result
burst, flash, flush (quasi in Visser)
mood
come (expensive), fall (flat), loom, turn out/up
feel, ring, sound, strike, taste
English and Spanish light verbs
(Rude 1978)
adjectives and PPs select their
copula
COCA:
598 seem + possible,
only 54 remain + possible
be, sit, stand predominate with locatives
COCA: temporary
seem as copula:
(1) & te bitæche icc off þiss boc. Heh wikenn. alls itt
semeþþ. All to þurrhsekenn illc an ferrs.
(OED, ‘to be suitable’ Ormulum Burchfield Ded. l. 66)
(2) His grisliche teeð semden of swart irn
‘seemed of black iron’
(OED, ‘have a semblance’ a1225 St. Marher. 9)
(3) As the mone lyght, Ageyn whom all the sterres semen
But smale candels. (OED, a1366, Romaunt Rose 1011)
OED says < Old Norse, but I can only find the noun sæmð
‘honor’. There is an OE gesemen ‘reconcile’ and a ME
‘be suitable’.
(4) He hæhte setten hire on nome þe hire [þe burh] mihte
isemen 'He ordered to set her a name which her might
suit.' [c1300 Otho semi]. (MED, Laȝamon Brut, Caligula
4780)
appear < Old French ‘come into
sight’
> ‘be clear’:
(1) Þat it may apere þat þe prescience is signe of
þis necessite. (OED, 374 Chaucer Boethius v. iv.
162)
(2) And the Lord siȝ, and it apperide yuel in hise
iȝen. (OED, a1425 Wycliffite Bible L.V. Royal
Isa. lix. 15)
(3)I am afraid of making them appear considerable
by taking notice of them. (OED,
1712 Steele Spectator 445.7)
remain < Anglo-Norman ‘stay
behind’: PP and AP
(1) so shall remayn be the grace of God all the
days of myn liff (Visser I: 195, 1460, Paston 4.5)
(2) the great primar, whiche before daies I gave to
my wif, remayn styll to her. (OED, 1513 Will of
Robert Fabyan in R. Fabyan New Chron.
Eng. (1811) Pref. p. vii)
(3) The lyppes of the membre remaynedene holy
together. (a1450 Arderne 17th Internat. Congr.
Med. (1914) xxiii. 121)
PP V
to her
remayn
V
DP
[loc] DP
PP
remayn primar
[dur] primar to her
[location] [i-3S]
[duration] [Th]
[uTh]
stay < Old French (Latin stare)
late ME ‘to stop’ and keep the meaning of
`stay/dwell’ and copula in:
(1) That this their meate may not stay long
vndigested in their stomackes, they sup off
the foresaid broth. (OED, 1600 J. Pory tr.
J. Leo Africanus Geogr. Hist. Afr. i. 20)
The various cycles in terms of features
The cycle of agreement
noun
> emphatic > pronoun > agreement > 0
[sem]
[i-phi]
[i-phi]/[u-phi] [u-phi]
The cycles of negation
Adjunct/Argument Specifier
Head (of NegP) affix
semantic
>
[i-NEG]>
[u-NEG]
Modal Cycle
Verb
[volition, expectation, future]
Copula Cycle
Dem
Verb
[location, duration]
>
--
>
AUX
[future]
>
light v
keeps a specific character
Where do features come from?
Chomsky (1965: 142): “semantic features ...
too, are presumably drawn from a
universal ‘alphabet’ but little is known
about this today and nothing has been
said about it here.”
EvG: If a language has nouns with semantic
phi-features, the learner will be able to
hypothesize uninterpretable features on
another F (and will be able to bundle them
there).
How many?
Cinque and Rizzi (2008): the number of
functional categories is 32 in Cinque
(1999: 130) and around 40 in Kayne
(2005). Cinque and Rizzi, using Heine &
Kuteva’s 2002 work, come up with 400.
Benincà & Munaro (2010: 6-7) note that
syntax has reached the detail of
phonological features.
Pinker (1989/2013: 244-5) has 30 for verb
semantics.
Innate
semantic
shapes
negatives
real-unreal
+/-individuated
duration
vs
acquired
interpretable
grammatical number
negation
`if’
irrealis
mass-count
progressive
Explanations of the Cycle
Recent shift towards third factors and parametric
features: Minimize structure and movement.
This can be seen in terms of Feature Economy:
All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F
Why?
– Maximize syntax?
– Keep merge going?
– Lighter?
Acquisition, Sign Language, ...
Unidirectional change in sign language
e.g. Aronoff et al; Fisher & Gough; Pfau &
Steinbach: V>ASP, N > AGR,
and L1 Acquisition
e.g. Brown (1973); Josefsson & Håkansson
(2000)
Interlanguage: debate as to features
Lardiere (2007), Hawkins (2005), Tsimpli et al
(2004)
Pre-human features: place, duration, negation ...
Conclusions
Unidirectional change provides a window
on the language faculty
Cycles: relevant to features and economy
Role of UG determines what changes:
PS rules > parameters > features
More work: features!
References
Benveniste, Emile 1960. The linguistic functions of to be and to have. In
Problems in General Linguistics.
Biese, Y. 1952. Notes on the use of the ingressive auxiliary in the
Works of William Shakespeare. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 53: 918.
Chvany, Catherine 1995. The paradigm as partitioned grammatical
space. In The Language and Verse of Russia. ....
Curme, George 1935.
Faarlund, Jan Terje 2012. A Grammar of Chiapas Zoque. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hodge, Carleton 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Linguistic Sciences: 13: 17.
Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive Link
between Pronoun and Copula. Rice Dissertation.Gelderen, Elly van
2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John 1977. Semantics II. CUP.
Mazzoli, Maria 2013. Copulas in Nigerian Pidgin. Padova
dissertation.
McWhorter, John 2005. Defining Creole. OUP.
Petré, Peter 2010. On the interaction between
constructional and lexical change. Leuven dissertation.
Post, Mark 2007. A Grammar of Galo. La Trobe
Dissertation.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the
Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rude, Noel 1978. A Continuum of Meaning in the Copula.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 202-210.
Stassen, Leon 1997. Intransitive Predication. OUP.