Cover not available
Part of
Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty
Edited by Anna Maria Di Sciullo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 235] 2016
► pp. 103–124

Feature values and the expression of variation

| Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

This paper proposes that feature values emerge dynamically from the interaction between features and the internal/structural and language-external environments. Feature values constitute a second, flexible layer around a selected sub-set of innate features, and effect linguistic variation within dialects and typologically related languages. Big, structural changes however originate from restricted changes in feature composition themselves, often the result of adding a new feature to the language-particular sub-set or repurposing some existing feature. Relevant analogies with biological variation are discussed in favor of the multi-level approach to linguistic variation proposed here.

Published online: 24 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.235.05cha
References
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E
1998 Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 491-539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.C
2008 The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 351-374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S
2009 Locus and limits of syntactic microvariation. Lingua 119(11): 1607-1624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Where is syntactic variation? In Language Variation - European Perspectives IV [Studies in Language Variation 14], P. Auer, J.C. Reina & G. Kaufmann (eds), 1-26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P., Barker, D., Clutton-Brock, T., Deb, D., D'Udine, B., Foley, R.A., Gluckman, P., Godfrey, K., Kirkwood, T., Mirazón Lahr, M., McNamara, J., Metcalfe, N.B., Monaghan, P., Spencer, H.G. & Sultan, S.E
2004 Developmental plasticity and human health. Nature 430(6998): 419-421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S. & Rezac, M
2003 Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], A.T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (eds), 49-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A. & Boeckx, C
2014 Universal Grammar and biological variation: An agenda for comparative biolinguistics. Biological Theory 9(2): 122–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
2007 Ergativity in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages. Handout of talk given at the MIT Ergativity Seminar . [URL]
Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M
2014 No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, R. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), 46-55. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. & Hale, K
1996 Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531-604.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C
2015 Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K.K
2007 The Biolinguistics manifesto. Biolinguistics 1: 1–8.Google Scholar
Borer, H
1984 Parametric Syntax. Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Z
2009 Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455-496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatterji, S.K
1926 The Origin and the Development of the Bengali Language. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 89-155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coon, J. & Preminger, O
2012 Towards a unified account of person splits. In WCCFL 29: Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, J. Choi (ed.), 310-318. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Deo, A. & Sharma, D
2006 Typological variation in the Ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
1972 The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M.S
2005 Order of subject, object, and verb. In World Atlas of Language Structures, B. Comrie, M.S. Dryer, D. Gil & M. Haspelmath (eds), 330-333. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007 Review of Frederick J. Newmeyer, Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Journal of Linguistics 43(1): 244-252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S.J., Levinson, S.C. & Gray, R.D
2011 Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473(7345): 79-82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. & Gould, S.J
1972 Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In Models in Paleobiology, T.J.M. Schopf (ed.), 82-115. San Francisco CA: Freeman Cooper.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S.T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E. & Saxe, R
2013 A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science 24(7): 1079-1088. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gluckman, P.D. & Hanson, M.A
2004 Developmental origins of disease paradigm: A mechanistic and evolutionary perspective. Pediatric Research 56(3): 311-317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J
2002 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H
1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language: Report of a Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, J.H. Greenberg (ed.), 73-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A.C. & Campbell, L
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perpective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W
2014 On the rationality of case. Language Sciences 46(Part B): 133-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I
2014 Parameters and three factors of language design. In Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, M. Carme Picallo (ed.), 61-81. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jirtle, R.L. & Skinner, M.K
2007 Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 253-262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R. Kayne (eds), 3-69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011 Why are there no directionality parameters. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, M. Byram Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (eds), 1-23. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2013 Comparative syntax. Lingua 130: 132-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kida, Ireneusz
2010 On how Norman-French hindered the development of English word order towards VO. In Aspects of the History of English Language and Literature: Selected Papers Read at SHELL 2009, O. Imahayashi, Y. Nakao & M. Ogura (eds), 285-292. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P
2008 Universal constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, J. Good (ed.), 23-53. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A.S
2001 Syntactic change. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 699-730. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A.S. & Taylor, A
(eds) 1994 Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. Philadelphia PA: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
1997 Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (eds), 297–325. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Taylor, A. & Ringe, D
1997 The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Textual Parameters in Older Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 195], S. Herring, P. van Reenen & L. Schoesler (eds), 353-391. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legate, J
2002 Walpiri: Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2012 Types of ergativity. Lingua 122:181-191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D
1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1991 How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. & Uriagereka, J
2010 The logic of parametric theories. Theoretical Linguistics 36(1): 69-76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. & Guardiano, C
2009 Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119(11): 1679-1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A.K
2012 Ergatives, antipassives and the overt light v in Hindi. Lingua 122(3): 204–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markovskaya, E
2012 Derivational account of gender in deverbal nominals. In Slavic Languages in Formal Grammar. Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, Markéta Ziková & Mojmír Dočekal (eds), 135-148. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A. & Saksida, A
2007 Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting 2006, R. Compton, M. Goledzinowska & U. Savchenko (eds), 210-227. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Meaney, M.J., Szyf, M. & Seckl, J.R
2007 Epigenetic mechanisms of perinatal programming of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function and health. Trends in Molecular Medicine 13(7): 269-277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J
2005 Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renzi, L. & Vanelli, L
1983 I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. In Scritti linguistici in onore di G.B. Pellegrini, P. Benincà, M. Cortelazzo, A. Prosdocimi, L. Vanelli & A. Zamboni (eds), 120-145. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Roberts, I
1997 Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (eds), 397-426. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A
2005 On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer. In Organizing grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz & J. Koster (eds), 538-553. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rönn, T., Poulsen, P., Hansson, O., Holmkvist, J., Almgren, P., Nilsson, P., Tuomi, T., Isomaa, B., Groop, L., Vaag, A. & Ling, C
2008 Age influences DNA methylation and gene expression of COX7A1 in human skeletal muscle. Diabetologia 51: 1159–1168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seckl, J.R. & Holmes, M.C
2007 Mechanisms of disease: Glucocorticoids, their placenta metabolism and ‘fetal’ programming of adult pathophysiology. Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism 3(6): 479-88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soltan, U
2007 On Formal Feature Licensing in Minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic Morphosyntax. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland College Park.Google Scholar
Subbarao, K.V
2012 South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R.S
1986 Basic Word Order. Functional Principles. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Vercelli, D. & Piatelli-Palmarini, M
2008 Language in an epigenetic framework. In Of Minds and Language, M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka & P. Salaburu (eds), 97-107. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wittkopp, P.J
2013 Evolution of gene expression. In The Princeton Guide to Evolution, J.B. Losos (ed.), 413-419. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar