Models of language variation and change

Description of the project (from the Research Proposal written by Rita Manzini) - Formal Analysis

The noun phrase (DP-phase): Balkan varieties

We investigate structures of adnominal modification/predication, including linkers and the expression of possession.

In linker structures, a modifier of the noun, typically an adjective or a possessor/genitive, is preceded by a lexical element agreeing with the noun itself, which in both Greek and Albanian(despite other differences) coincides with the definite article (Guardiano & Stavrou 2014, Franco et al. 2015). Linker structures are a nice illustration of the virtues of our study in being able to cross and compare several domains of contact-induced variation. Arbëresh varieties preserve linkers structures despite pervasive contact with linker-less Italo-Romance (Franco et al. 2015). In Italiot Greek, the indirect outcome of contact with Italo-Romance has been the progressive loss of linker structures (Guardiano & Stavrou 2014). Aromanian in contact with Greek and Albanian, has linkers in both pre-genitive and pre-adjective contexts (Romanian has them only in pre-genitive contexts).

Given enough data and subtle enough analytical tools, we can investigate a range of questions that open up with respect to contact and parameters, expecting precise answers. For instance:

• do external factors determine linguistic outcomes or do the latter in fact distribute freely, with external pressure simply accelerating the rate of change and not determining its direction?
• Is it possible to demonstrate a dependency of certain parametric outcomes from others – or are the (re)alignments observed entirely independent of any internal hierarchy among parameters?

Possessive subjects of DPs are connected to the expression of sentential agents/subjects as obliques in voice (and ergativity alternations) in the vP-phase. Relevant case studies include the middle-passive voice of Albanian and Greek (Manzini et al. 2016) and its externalization by a clitic in both Romance (‘si’) and in Albanian. Arbëresh causatives combining a finite embedded verb with the obliquization of the causee, as in Romance, are another case in point (Manzini & Savoia 2007).

The DP-phase: history of English

Our research on variation directly connects with that on change on the issue of the structure of the DP.

The position of English, as defined by its present-day nominal syntax, is internal to Germanic, of course. However, in previous experiments with the PCM method, its precise position within Germanic has not fallen clearly and steadily either within West Germanic or within North Germanic. This may be interpreted as evidence for massive syntactic contact between English and Scandinavian, or be considered evidence in favour of the hypothesis that Middle English is a direct descendant of the Scandinavian variety spoken in the Danelaw rather than of Old English. The contact with Norman French has also at times been held responsible for some changes that took place in the transition from Old to Middle English (Allen 2008), and it contributes to blurring the picture.

Perhaps the crucial aspect of the PCM is that syntactic changes can be used to demonstrate genealogical relations, but in this particular domain - i.e. the relation between English and Scandinavian - it has not proven successful yet; this may be due to the fact that the PCM only compared present-day languages and not their older stages. Therefore the formal analysis of DP syntax in Old and Middle English (Crisma 2011, 2012, 2015; Crisma & Pintzuk 2016) will be extended with the aim of assigning to the mediaeval languages as many parameter values as possible among those present in the PCM grid. This will form the basis for measuring the distance and, ideally, performing phylogenetic computational experiments, between Old and Middle English, Old Nordic and Norman French. The ambition is seeing whether contact has quantitatively detectable effects (on the diachronic axis).

The clausal spine (vP- and CP-phases): Germanic varieties

The crucial contribution of Germanic varieties to the present project concerns sentential word order – specifically given that the German/Romance contact implies two different head-complement orders (VO/OV) and the contrast between V2 and non-V2 syntax of root (or embedded root) sentences (Bidese & Tomaselli 2007, 2016, Bidese et al. 2012, 2014).

Rhaeto-Romance varieties in contact with German, especially of the Surselva, which are also within our domain of expertise (Bidese 2008, Manzini & Savoia 2005), provide the mirror-image case study. Strikingly, Cimbrian has VO order, aligned with Romance; however pronouns display a conservative Mittelfeld-like positioning. In the mirror-image case study, Romansh maintains SVO order. Nevertheless, Sursilvan probably moves the finite auxiliary a step higher, yielding a non-conservative positioning of weak pronouns/clitics. Thus, in the crossed conditions (Cimbrian in contact with Romance, Sursilvan in contact with German) somewhat similar word orders are produced – but implying different parametric choices.

One of the central aims of the present project is to disentangle external notions of convergence from the internal means that produce them. The question goes to the core of how the external pressures brought about by contact do and do not interact with the Language Faculty in(accelerating/magnifying) variation and change.

The case study we just set up is a realistic example, we think, of the kind of data and analytical tools that allow us to pursue the question in a precise enough way to admit of a predictive answer. Next, Germanic languages are all V2, at least residually. Most modern Romance languages have no generalized V2, and the null subject varieties not even residual V2 phenomena. Here again, in German varieties in contact, conservative and innovative phenomena are found: V2 and subject inversion on the one hand, and on the other hand cliticization phenomena (enclisis versus proclisis onto the finite verbal form, enclisis onto the subordinating conjunction). Romansh V2 varieties have often been assumed to preserve a medieval Romance character, but this is not in keeping with some of their features – notably subject auxiliary inversion of the Germanic type in Sursilvan (Manzini & Savoia 2005). Complementizer borrowing into German varieties is of special interest here because the borrowing interacts with word order and specifically with embedded V2. Interactions with null subject are another case study of interest, namely subject extraction out of subordinate clauses (the “that-trace effect”).

Click here to read more on Parametric Models.