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 (64)
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