Language Design, Feature Economy, and the Subject Cycle Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University

Factors in Language Design 1.Genetic endowment = UG 2.Experience 3.Principles not specific to language (Chomsky 2005: 6). The third factor includes principles of efficient computation, which are "of particular significance in determining the nature of attainable languages" (Chomsky 2005: 6)

More details (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"

Some third factors Strong Minimalist Thesis Language is a perfect solution to interface conditions (Chomsky 2007: 5) Head Preference Principle (HPP): Be a head, rather than a phrase. Late Merge Principle (LMP): Merge as late as possible (van Gelderen 2004)

If there are Principles, they should be visible in Lg Change Demonstrative pronoun that to C Pronoun whether to C Demonstrative to article Negative adverb to negation marker Adverb to aspect marker Adverb to complementizer (e.g. till) Full pronoun to agreement =Spec to head

Late Merge On, from P to ASP VP Adverbials > TP/CP Adverbials Like, from P > C (like I said) Negative objects to negative Modals: v > ASP > T Negative verbs to auxiliaries To: P > ASP > M > C PP > C (for him to do that...)

Negative Cycle in Old English CE a.no/neearly Old English b.ne(na wiht/not)after 900, esp S c.(ne)notafter 1350 d.not>-not/-n’tafter 1400

Spec to Head and Merge over Move HPP XP SpecX' na wihtXYP not> n’t… Late Merge

The Subject Cycle (1) demonstrative > third person pron > clitic > agrmnt (2) oblique > emphatic > first/second pron > clitic > agrmnt Basque verbal prefixes n-, g-, z- = pronouns ni ‘I’, gu ‘we’, and zu ‘you’. Pama-Nyungan, inflectional markers are derived from independent pronouns. Iroquoian and Uto-Aztecan agreement markers derive from Proto-Iroquoian pronouns Cree verbal markers ni-, ki-, o-/ø = pronouns niya, kiya, wiya.

Some stages Korean and Urdu/Hindi: full pronoun (1)ku-nunil-ulha-nta he-TOPwork-ACCdo-DECL (2)a.mẽy nee uskodekha 1S ERGhimDATsaw b.aadmii neekitaabkopeRha man ERGbookDATread (3)ham log `we people‘ (4)mẽy or merii behn doonõ dilii mẽy rehtee hẽ I and my sister both Delhi in living are

English: in transition (a) Modification, (b) coordination, (c) position, (d) doubling, (e) loss of V-movement, (f) Code switching Coordination (and Case) (1)Kitty and me were to spend the day. (2)%while he and she went across the hall. Position (3)She’s very good, though I perhaps I shouldn’t say so. (4)You maybe you've done it but have forgotten. (5)Me, I was flying economy, but the plane, … was guzzling gas

Doubling and cliticization (1)Me, I've tucking had it with the small place. (2)%Him, he.... (3)%Her, she shouldn’t do that (not attested in the BNC) (4)*As for a dog, it should be happy. CSE-FAC: uncliticizedcliticizedtotal I (=25%)2722 you (=12.1%)1338 he12819 (=12.9%)147

Loss of V-movement and Code switching (5)What I'm go'n do? `What am I going to do' (6)How she's doing? `How is she doing‘ (7)*He ging weg ` he went away’ Dutch-English CS (8)The neighbor ging weg

Grammaticalization = Specifier to Head Subject Cycle aTPbTP DPT’DPT’ pronTVPpron-TVP Urdu/Hindi, KoreanColl French cTP [DP] T’ proagr-TVP Italian varieties

French (1)*Je et tu... I and you (2)*Je lis et écris `I read and write'. (3)Je lis et j'écris I read and I-write `I read and write'. (4)J’ai vuça. I-haveseenthat (5)*Je probablement ai vu ça I probably have seen that

Formal > Colloquial (1)mais je ne l'ai pasencore démontré but INEGit-have NEG yetproven `but I haven't yet proven that' (Annales de l'institut Henri Poincaré, 1932, p. 284) (2)j'aipas encore démontré ça

Two problems w/ HPP and LMP Minor:Move is `just’ internal merge Major:Language Change proceeds in a cycle. HPP and LMP are 2 stages but 2 more: (a) how is the head lost, (b) how is the specifier replaced

Head > 0 is solvable: e.g. iconicity Null hypothesis of language acquisition A string is a word with lexical content. Faarlund (2008) explains that "the child misses some of the boundary cues, and interprets the input string as having a weaker boundary (fewer slashes, stronger coherence) at a certain point" My alternative: Feature Economy

Feature Economy Minimize the interpretable features in the derivation, e.g: Adj/ArgSpecifierHeadaffix semantic >[iF]>[uF]>--

Subject > Agreement emphatic > full pronoun > head > agreement [i-phi] [i-phi][u-1/2] [u-phi] [i-3]

What is FE? Maximize syntax? Keep merge going? Lighter?

Conclusions Economy Principles = Third factor Children use these to analyze their input + there is language change if accepted. Change is from the inside Possible Principles: HPP and LMP –but some problems Therefore, Feature Economy