Cover not available
Article published In:
Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.24–56

Parameters and the design of the Language Faculty

Northern Italian partial null subjects

| University of Firenze

Following Berwick and Chomsky (2011), parameters are degrees of freedom open at the externalization (EXT) of syntactico-semantic structures (SEM) by sensorimotor systems (PHON) (Section 1). Within this framework, in Section 2 I focus on a case study concerning Northern Italian subject clitics, also raising the well-known question how to reconcile observable microvariation with the desideratum of a reduced number of (macro)parameters. Sections 3 reviews recent relevant models of parameterization, the Rethinking Comparative Syntax model (ReCoS, Biberauer et al. 2014) and the Parameters & Schemata model (Longobardi 2005, 2017). Sections 4–5 return to the case study, taking the reductionist view that parameters may be just categorial cuts, such as the 1/2P vs 3P split, interacting with externalization and other general principles of grammar.

Keywords: parameter, externalization, lexicon, null subject, microvariation
Article outline
  • 1.From the foundational work of the 80s to evolutionary linguistics
  • 2.A case study: Partial null subject in Northern Italian varieties
  • 3.Some recent models: The ReCoS project, Longobardi’s Schemata
  • 4.Manzini and Savoia’s account of Northern Italian partial null subjects
  • 5.Microvariation and macrocategories
    • 5.1Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 24 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00003.man
References

References

Arregi, K. & Nevins, A.
(2018) Beware Occam’s Syntactic Razor: Morphotactic Analysis and Spanish Mesoclisis. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4), 625–683. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
(2001) The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Balari, S. & Lorenzo, G.
(2018) The internal, the external and the hybrid: The state of the art and a new characterization of language as a natural object. Glossa, 3(1), 221. 1–33. < DOI logo>Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Haiman, J.
(1992) The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N.
(2011) The biolinguistic program: the current state of its evolution and development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T.
(2010) Semi null-subject languages, expletives and expletive pro reconsidered. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 153–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.
(2012) Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: diachronic considerations. In J. Chancharu, X. Hu & M. Mitrovic (Eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 61, 209–36.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M.
(2014) Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H.
(1983) Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(2005) Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calabrese, A.
(2011) Investigations on markedness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology Morphology , 21(2), 283–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L.
(2008) The Phonology and Syntax of Preverbal and Postverbal Subject Clitics in Northern Italian Dialects. Linguistic Inquiry, 391, 523–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrect: Foris.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & M. Gaertner (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax- semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. & Ott, D.
(2017) Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. To appear in Á. Gallego & D. Ott (Eds), Generative Syntax: Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges, Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Embick, D.
(2000) Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 311, 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
(2007) Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.
(1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non-)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.
(2008) Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.
(2017) Parameter theory and parametric comparison. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 377–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
(1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. In A. Carnie, H. Harley & T. Bures (Eds.), Papers on Phonology and Morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 211, 275–288.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T.
(2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science, 2981, 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A.
(2010) Null subject parameters. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Sheehan, M.
(2010) Control into finite clauses in partial null-subject languages. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 125–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E.
(1984) Empty Categories and Non-Configurational Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 39–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010a) Comparisons and Contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010b) Toward a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005). In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe & B. Hollebrandse (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Groningen (2008), 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
(2008) Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G.
(2003) Methods in Parametric Linguistics and Cognitive History. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 31, 101–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) A Minimalist Program for Parametric Linguistics? In H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz & J. Koster (Eds.), Organizing Grammar, 407–14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2017) Principles, Parameters, and Schemata. A radically underspecified UG. Linguistic Analysis, 411, 3–4.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R.
(2015) On the substantive primitives of morphosyntax and their parametrization: Northern Italian subject clitics. In M. van Oosterdorp & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Representing structure in phonology and syntax, 167–194. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Micro‑ and macro-variation: From pronominal allomorphies to the category of irreality/non-veridicality. In M. Grimaldi, R. Lai, L. Franco & B. Baldi (Eds), Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond. In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia, 109–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. M.
(2005) I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 31 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
(2007) A unification of morphology and syntax. Studies in Romance and Albanian varieties. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Mesoclisis in the imperative: Phonology, morphology or syntax? Lingua, 1211, 1101–1120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011c) (Bio)linguistic variation: Have/be alternations in the present perfect. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 222–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Enclisis/proclis alternations in Romance: allomorphies and (re)ordering. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1151, 98–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) The Morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian Varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & Wexler, K.
(1987) Binding theory, parameters and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 181, 413–444.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y.
(1989) Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 365–424.Google Scholar
Renzi, L. & Vanelli, L.
(1983) I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. In Scritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, 120–145. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 501–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(2007) Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.
(2010) Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan, Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.
(2003) Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M.
(2014) Towards a Parameter Hierarchy for Alignment. In R. Santana-LaBarge (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 311, 399–408. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U.
(2009) Hebrew as a partial null subject language. Studia Linguistica, 63(1), 133–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. & Manzini, M. R.
(1987) Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting, 41–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R., Chomsky, N. & Bolhuis, J.
(2017) The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 811, 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Manzini, M. Rita & Ludovico Franco
2019. ‘Agreement of structural obliques’parameter. Lingvisticae Investigationes 42:1 ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Poletto, Cecilia & Alessandra Tomaselli
2021. Resilient Subject Agreement Morpho-Syntax in the Germanic Romance Contact Area. Languages 6:3 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.