Semantic and formal features: evidence and challenges

Elly van Gelderen

ALC 7, 12 October 2013

Tucson, AZ

Outline1 The importance of features in

Minimalism. What are they?

2 How does language change shed light on features?

3 Where do features `come from’?

The importance of features

Chomsky (1965: 87-88): lexicon contains information for the phonological, semantic, and syntactic component.

Sincerity +N, -Count, +Abstract...

Chomsky (2000: 10): There are two operations (a) features into lexical items

(b) lexical items into larger

syntactic objects

Features of airplane and build

(adapted from Chomsky 1995: 231)

airplane buildsemantic: e.g. [artifact] e.g. [action]phonological: e.g. [begins with a vowel; e.g. [one syllable]

two syllables]formal:

intrinsic optional intrinsic optional[nominal] [number] [verbal] [phi][3 person] [Case] [assign accusative] [tense][non-human]

The "much more important distinction“ (1995: 277):

Formal features are: interpretable and uninterpretable

airplane build

Interpr. [nominal] [verbal]

[3 person] [assign [non-human]

accusative]

Uninterpr [Case] [phi]

Chomsky (2001: 10)Phonological features are accessed at PF,

the semantic ones at LF, and the formal ones accessible in the NS, but semantic and formal “intersect”.

This intersection was not there in Chomsky (1965: 142) where semantic features are defined as not involved in the syntax.

The uninterpretable ones are valued and only survive to PF; the interpretable ones are relevant at LF.

Around 1998: AGREE(1) TP

T’

T VP[u-phi]

DP V’

many buffaloes V PP[i-3] [i-P] are

in the room

Feature checking isn’t uniform

A) Two-way, reciprocal:

agreement [u-phi] and [u-Case].

B) just interpretable: Cinque’s features for modals and possibly [i-phi] in Pronominal Argument Languages.

C) One-way, non-reciprocal:

[u-neg] and [i-neg]

So, `active’ is debatable as is the direction (see e.g. Baker 2008). Carstens (2012) has “delayed valuation”, i.e. no (A) and downward search.

The uninterpretability of C and T

If C has a u-Q, that is valued by a wh-element, how can a clause be typed as interrogative?

Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001; 2006) dissociation of valuation and interpretation allows a solution: C has unvalued i-Q.

The same would hold for T with an unvalued i-T.

CP and TP

(2) VP

V CPsay[u-ind] C’

C TPthat[u-ind] she T’

T ...[i-past]

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).

Loss of semantic features

Full verbs such as Old English will with

[volition, expectation, future] features are reanalyzed as having only the feature [future] in Middle English.

And the negative

OE no/ne > ME (ne) not > -n’t

> ModE –n’t ... nothing, never, etc

Semantic > Interpretable > Uninterpretable

(1) Ac nis nan scild trum[ra] wið ðæt ...

But NEG.is no shield stronger against the ...

`But there is no stronger shield against ...’

(2) ne ne helpeð nawiht eche lif to haben.

nor not helps not eternal life to have

`Nor does it help to have eternal life.’

(3) I can't do nothing for you either, Billy.

(4) No, I never see him these days

(BNC - A9H 350)

French Pronoun > Agreement (well known)

(1) Se je meïsme ne li di Old FrenchIf I myself not him tell`If I don’t tell him myself.’ (Franzén

1939:20, Cligès 993)(2) a. Je lis et j'écris

I read and I-write b. *Je lis et écris

I read and writec. *Je probablement ai vu ça

I probably have seen that

(3) J’ai vu ça.

I-have seen that

(4) tu vas où

2S go where

‘Where are you going?'

(5) Moi, je ....

me, I ...

(6) si un: un Russe i va en France Swiss

if a Russian il goes to France

‘If a Russian goes to France.’

(Fonseca-Greber 2000: 335)

The cycle of phi-features

noun > emphatic > pronoun > agreement > 0

[sem] [i-phi] [i-phi]/[u-phi] [u-phi]

Demonstrative

[i-3S]

[i-loc]

article complementizer copula

[u-phi] [u-T] [i-loc]

(1) Mi da i tatáSaramaccan

I be your father

‘I am your father.’ (McWhorter 1997)

Latin: From Neg to Q(1) tu-ne id veritus es

you-Q that fear be

`Did you fear that?’ (Greenough et al. 1931: 205)

Negatives value the [u-Q] of the PolP through their [i-neg]; “if the negative quality somehow weakens, it is reanalyzed as a PolP head whose polarity is not specified.” (van Gelderen 2011: 295).

Where do features come from?

The Minimalist program has shifted the emphasis from UG to third factors and from syntactic parameters to lexical ones, i.e. features. One of the reasons to deemphasize UG is the supposed lack of evolutionary depth.

Third factors, however, are vague and feature theory is not well-developed.

From early GenGr to Minimalism

Universal Grammar UG and Third factors

+ >> +Input Input(Scottish English, Western Navajo, etc) =

=I-language I-language

E-language

Borer-Chomsky-Conjecture

"All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon." (Baker 2008: 156)

Muysken (2008: 6):

“I find the generative literature on functional categories rather vague.”

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.

Cf. phonology:

“The main task of feature theory, then, is to find the phonetic features which accurately describe the attested phonologically active classes in the world’s languages” (Samuels 2012: 4).

For syntax:

We need the semantic categories that feed the formal ones.

The first 20 features in Heine and Kuteva:

permissive, possibility, agent, comparative, material, partitive, past/near, A-possessive, since (temporal), superlative, complementizer, dative, infinitive, patient, purpose, temporal, until (temporal), only, NP-and, subordinator.

Some of the ones in Pinker: Event, State, Thing, Path, Place, Property, Manner, +/- dynamic, +/-control, place-functions, path-functions, cause- or effect focus, ...

Some other questionsMuysken (2008: 46): “features which are doubly

expressed ... but receive a single interpretation, must be functional.”

Which feature can value which?[u-phi] is easy, as long as it gets a value such as

from i-3, i-P etc.[u-pol]: i-neg?[u-T]: i-past?[u-ind]: i-ind?

How about the order of categories?

Chomsky (2001: 12):

“Assume that substantive categories are selected by functional categories. V by a light verb, T by C”.

Cinque Hierarchy?!

Challenge: acquisition of features and their order

Jackendoff (2002), based on Bickerton (1990), suggests that pre-linguistic primate conceptual structure may already use symbols for basic semantic relations. This may include spatial and causal concepts. “Agent First, Focus Last ... are `fossil principles’ from protolanguage”. Homo erectus (1 million BP) may have had protolanguage. This gives the innate faculty longer to incorporate this.

The acquisition of semantic features

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.”

Chomsky (1993: 24) vocabulary acquisition shows poverty of the stimulus.

The status of meaning, i.e. sem features

“Les idées ... ne tirent en aucune sorte leur origine des sens ... Notre ame a la faculté de les former de soi-même.”

`Ideas do not in any fashion have their origin in the senses ... Our mind has the faculty to form those on its own.’ (Arnauld & Nicole 1662 [1965]: 45)

How to address the PoS• Pinker (1984: 57): categorization < semantic

properties and Lebeaux (1988: 44): grammatical categories are centered in cognitive ones. Where do semantic and cognitive categories come from? UG?

• Geach (1957: 22-23): “Abstractionists rarely attempt an abstractionist account of logical concepts, like those of some, or, and not” ... “In the sensible world you will find no specimens of alternativeness and negativeness from which you could form by abstraction the concept of or or of not”.

Acquisition: sem > [i-F]/[u-F]

(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)

Do we need uninterpretable?

-Two negative cycles:

A) Using an indefinite, e.g. nothing/never/a bit in English, French, Arabic

B) Using a new verb, e.g. Chinese

-Languages without overt agreement

Conclusions

Recent shift towards third factors and parametric features: we need to be careful how many mechanisms we allow.

All change is in the lexicon: sem>i-F>u-F

Language Change should give insight on the inventory

What does the Poverty of the Stimulus argument mean for vocabulary acquisition?

ReferencesAdger, David & Peter Svenonius 2010. Features in

Minimalist Syntax. msBaker, Mark 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord.

CUP.Benincà, Paola & Nicola Munaro 2010. Introduction. In

Benincà, Paola & Nicola Munaro (eds), Mapping the Left Periphery, 3-15. OUP.

Chomsky, Noam 1993. Language and Thought. Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Chomsky, Noam 2000. New Horizons in the Study of

Language and Mind. CUP.Chomsky, Noam 2001. Derivation by Phase.Chomsky, Noam 2007. Approaching UG from below, in Uli

Sauerland et al. (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.

. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures V. Moscati, ed. CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition, 2, 43-59.

• Fodor, Jerry 1981. Representations. MIT Press. • Geach, Peter. 1957 Mental Acts. • Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle.

OUP.• Gelderen, Elly van 2013. Clause Structure. CUP.• Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva 2002. World

Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.

• Jackendoff, Ray 1983. Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press.

• Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford.

• Lebeaux, David 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Muysken, Pieter 2008. Functional Categories. CUP

• Panagiodis, E. Phoevos 2008. Diachronic stability and feature interpretability. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.) The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego 2007. The Syntax of Valuation and the Interpretability of Features. In Simin Karimi et al. Phrasal and Clausal Architecture, 262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins..

• Pinker, Steven 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Pinker, Steven 1989 [2013]. Language Learnability and Cognition. MIT Press.

• Samuels, Bridget 2012. The Emergence of Phonological Forms. ms

• Shlonsky, Ur 2010. The Cartographic Enterprise in Syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4/6: 417-429.