Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
12 - Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
Just as in biology nothing makes sense unless one can provide a plausible account of how it might have evolved (Theodosius Dobzhansky 1973), so in syntax no feature of I-languages makes sense unless one can show how it might have been first acquired by children exposed to new primary linguistic data. Diachronic syntacticians have been able to show how particular elements of new I-languages might have been triggered by new PLD and therefore have been able enrich models of acquisition beyond the ambitions of synchronic syntacticians. So English has elements not occurring in other European languages and we can show how those elements were acquired in response to new E-language PLD and how there were domino effects.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 224 - 240Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.). 1981. The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. “The selection of syntactic knowledge.” Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1964. “Biology, molecular and organismic.” American Zoologist 4: 443–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dresher, B. E. 1999. “Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F., and Vikner, S. 2012. “Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese.” Language 88: 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.” Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.). 2017. Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2013. “Types of explanation in history.” Language 89/4: 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2017a. “Acquisition and learnability.” In Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2017b. “Imperfect transmission and discontinuity.” In Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1995. “Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.” Language 71: 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by