Published on November 5, 2007
Traces of Grammar Evolution: Traces of Grammar Evolution Protoconstructions, Patches and Mismatch Effects Laura A. Michaelis Department of Linguistics & Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado at Boulder July 17, 2007 STATPHYS 2007 Erice Overview: Grammar Dilemmas: Overview: Grammar Dilemmas Within any given speech community, some people have different linguistic generalizations from others. For example, some people would say (a), others (b): (a) It is you who are confused. (b) It is you who is confused. A language critic could say that (b) is the wrong generalization: it fails to take into account that you is a second-person pronoun, and therefore selects are. Another could say that (a) is the wrong generalization: the subject of the second verb is not you but who, a third-person singular. Overview: Grammar Dilemmas: Overview: Grammar Dilemmas In fact, it is the cleft construction that is at fault: is and are are equally valid solutions. This is why both solutions are attested: It is you who are displaying distinct Talibanistic characteristics. (tenets.zoroastrianism.com) You are wrong, Mr. Blair: It is you who is prejudiced about science. (newstatesman.com) When one solution gets adopted, we could say that grammar has changed, but it’s more accurate to say that a construction has changed. Grammar change occurs on a construction-by-construction basis. Grammar by Increments: Grammar by Increments The view that grammatical generalizations are construction-bound accords with Jackendoff’s claim that grammar is not a single unified system, but a collection of simpler systems. […] Hence the evolution of the language capacity can be seen as deeply incremental. (2002: 264) Incremental development results in layers, which contain patterns I will call protoconstructions. Protoconstructions resemble early strategies in language development: they lack inflection and hierarchical structure and have context-dependent meanings (Bickerton 1990, Jackendoff 1999). Protoconstructions: Protoconstructions Protoconstructions can combine with sentence-building constructions, but when they do, the components that they add are (1) on the margins of the clause, (2) dispensable and (3) intonationally separate: Vocatives: Sandy, your pizza’s ready. Your pizza’s ready, Sandy. Interjections: Wow, are YOU in trouble. GOD it’s hot. Detached topics (Lambrecht 1994, 2001, Deulofeu forthcoming): Moi, ma mère, le salon, c’est de la moquette, le sol. ‘Me, my mother, the parlor, it’s carpet, the floor.’ Problem Solving: Problem Solving Protoconstructions are not adaptations per se; they are the vestigial organs of the grammar. But adaptations can be seen in the (re)use of old forms to solve current communicative problems. The demands of speech production require speakers to use or adapt established routines wherever possible (Bolinger 1976). The recycling strategy is seen in grammaticalization, the creation of a grammatical marker from a word (Hurford 2003, Heine & Kuteva 2002), e.g., the English like quotative. Problem Solving: Problem Solving The recycling strategy is also seen in certain syntactic innovations, which I will refer to as patches. I will focus on two kinds of patches: Amalgams. Nonstandard grammatical patterns that contain two contiguous or overlapping syntactic units that cannot otherwise be combined. Example: Ample negatives (Lawler 1974). Not in MY backyard you won’t. Not THIS time you won’t. Mismatch effects. Constructions that are used without their originally associated meanings. Example: Clausal complements with I think (Thompson & Mulac 1991). I think it’s working, isn’t it/*don’t I? Problem Solving: Problem Solving What kinds of communicative problems are speakers using patches to resolve? I will discuss three such problems: Signaling a shift to a new topic while avoiding prolixity (Lambrecht 1994, Michaelis & Francis 2007). Keeping intonation breaks (pauses) aligned with the edges of grammatical units (Croft 1995). Making optimal use of a construction when it has narrow combinatoric potential. Topic Shifting: Topic Shifting The sentence topic is the predictable participant in the predication; as such it is expressed by a pronoun or a zero: He never meows. He he doesn’t have any front claws. I had him declawed but he doesn’t bite anybody. He’s just he’s just kind of there—real friendly and docile. (Swbd) Topics can be direct objects, but they are far more likely to be subjects: 91% of subjects in English conversation are pronouns while only 34% of objects are (Michaelis & Francis 2007). Subjects are “grammaticized clause topics” (Mithun 1991: 160). A topic tends to persist over several predications, but speakers must also occasionally introduce a new topic (Walker & Prince 1996). How? Topic Shifting: Topic Shifting The simplest strategy is to introduce the new topic in subject position: A: Wh[en]—when I got older I liked things like Caesar’s Palace. You know, that’s where I like to stay and and B: Oh yeah and oh okay you can’t you’re gonna camp out at Caesar’s Palace huh A: Uh right exactly so this summer um my boyfriend lives in California B: Alright. A: and he loves to go camping and he s[aid]: “Let’s go camping”, and I went. (Swbd) But this practice runs afoul of Lambrecht’s Principle of Separation of Reference and Role (1994: 146): “Do not introduce a referent and talk about it in the same clause”. Topic-Shifting Patches: Topic-Shifting Patches An alternative strategy is: introduce a new entity in direct-object position, then comment about that entity in later clauses: Like I saw someone at a Halloween party. This lady was from Turkey, and she’d been belly dancing since she was four years old. (Swbd) But effort conservation disfavors such explicit strategies, and favors patches, including left dislocation (Prince 1984): I mean, if it was really a deterrent, I mean, I think, like, horse thieves in the old West, you know, they saw other horse thieves hanging by their necks. (Swbd) All topic-shifting patches prevent a new participant from being sentence subject, including those patches that are amalgams. Topic-Shifting Amalgams: Topic-Shifting Amalgams English: There was a ball of fire shot up through the seats in front of me. (Lambrecht 1988: 319) Or, you know, I have a friend of mine that he hasn’t seen one of his cats for, you know, like going on six weeks now. (Fisher) French (Lambrecht 2000): J’ai eu mon beau-frère qui a fait Paris-Nice. ‘My brother-in-law did Paris-Nice.’ (lit. ‘I had my brother-in-law who did P-N.’) Y a le téléphone qui sonne.‘The phone’s ringing.’ (lit. ‘There’s the phone which is ringing.’) Je vois le facteur qui arrive.‘I see the mailman coming.’ Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units: Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units A common conversational strategy is to introduce a forthcoming assertion by means of a set-up clause (Massam 1999): Yeah, well, that’s another problem: I think to really correct the judicial system you have to get the lawyers out of it. That’s the problem is that they all ask for so much up front. Well, the problem is uh minimum wage is not enough to live on. The last strategy is the simplest, but it is problematic for speakers. Why? Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units: Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units The construction in question is Simplex Apposition (Brenier & Michaelis 2005); its structural properties are as follows: But[NPthe thing] [VP IS [break] I always carry it with my checkbook]. Simplex violates the strong tendency for intonational breaks to align with the edges of syntactic constituents (Croft 1995, Watson & Gibson 2003). Simplex has an intonation unit that is not a grammatical unit (the set up) and it breaks the VP by putting a pause in it. Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units: Aligning Grammatical and Prosodic Units There is another respect in which Simplex is weird prosodically: its finite verb is a prosodic peak, but not for the usual reason, accent deflection (Ladd 1996: ch. 5). In accent deflection, prominence shifts to the verb just in case its complement denotes a topical entity: A: I found an article for you in a German journal. B: I don’t READ German. (Ladd 1996: 175) Simplex marks is as prominent, but this can’t be explained by deflection: the clausal complement is not topical but focal. Patching an Alignment Problem: Patching an Alignment Problem The problems with Simplex comes from the dual function that the verb be is forced to perform: Syntactic: the verb be introduces a complement clause, e.g., I always carry it with my checkbook. Discourse-pragmatic: the verb be is a focus marker, signaling forthcoming propositional content. Speakers have created a nonstandard pattern to fix the Simplex defects; I will call this pattern ISIS. Patching an Alignment Problem: Patching an Alignment Problem ISIS is an amalgam: Right uh but [S? the thing IS] [VP that POWER involves controlling the resources for OTHER people]. See I- I AGREE with that, but MY whole problem IS is that I really don’t like BUSH. ISIS contains the front end of Simplex and the back end of an ordinary subject-predicate construction: ISIS solves Simplex problems: ISIS has an unbroken VP and an accentless is. But it creates another: what is the syntactic category of the ‘set up’ clause? The moral of the story: patches aren’t perfect. Expanding Combinatoric Potential: Expanding Combinatoric Potential Constructions call for specific semantic and syntactic types, e,g., the English indefinite article seeks a count entity: *a foliage, *a furniture, *a mud. Speakers may intentionally violate these restrictions in order to create new semantic types (Jackendoff 1997, De Swart 1998). Examples include: a strip of towel, some pillow, a ketchup, Suddenly, I knew the answer, I’m loving it. Such mismatch effects are patches because they solve a communicative problem by leveraging existing resources. Conclusions: Conclusions Under a construction-based view of grammar, grammar is a set of patterns, of varying degrees of internal complexity, that people use to do things. Old patterns exist alongside newer ones. Talking is hard, and part of the problem is caused by constraints on the constructions at hand. The easiest solution to a communicative problem is to create a new construction from old ones. Conclusions: Conclusions The prevalence of the patching strategy illustrates Slobin’s (1992) point about children, adults and syntactic change: Adults are the major drivers of syntactic change because they know the grammar better and therefore know best how to extend its potential. If we want to examine grammar change, we should look at the strategies that speakers use in conversational speech.