extending parametric comparison: some preliminary results

Extending Parametric Comparison: Some Preliminary

Results James Baker and Ian Roberts

DiGS 22, University of Konstanz, 20th May 2021

1. Project overview

20th May 2021 Baker & Roberts - Extending Parametric Comparison 2

The project

• Basic goal is to develop a database of parameter values in the form of a “parametric grid” (see Table A below);

• 87 clausal parameters for 42 languages;

• Combined with Ceolin et al’s (2020, 2021) 94-parameter nominal database, this will give a total of 181 clausal and nominal parameters (Ceolin et al have data on 58 languages altogether);

• The database can then be used for theoretical, historical and computational investigations.


Calculating distances

• The distance between two languages (X, Y) is δ (0 δ 1) determined by the Jaccard formula for the ordered pair <i, d> (where i = the number of identities in parameter values and d = the number of differences)

𝑖

𝑖 + 𝑑

• Apply phylogenetic software to produce the optimum tree representing the syntactic distance between each pair of languages in the sample

• Next slide shows a KITSCH tree for parametric distances (Longobardi and Guardiano 2017: 260).


2. Defining the parameters


Parameters for EP(V)

• First task: to extend the list of parameters in EP(N) into a (broadly parallel) list of parameters for EP(V)

➢ 87 clausal parameters

• Focusing mostly on TP, VP


Parallels with EP(N)

• Many of our parameters have parallels to the EP(N) set, e.g.

• PN1 Grammaticalised Person [in EP(N)] ║ PV1 Grammaticalised Person in EP(V)

• PN3 Grammaticalised Gender [in EP(N)] ║ PV3 Grammaticalised Gender in EP(V)• English: +PN3 (himself/herself), –PV3 (no gender agreement on V, etc.)

• PN4 NP over D ║ PV48 vP over T and other head-complement order parameters


Parameter schemata

• Gianollo, Guardiano & Longobardi (2008):

a. Is F, F a functional feature, grammaticalised?

b. Is F, F a grammaticalized feature, checked by X, X a lexical category?

c. Is F, F a grammaticalized feature, spread on Y, Y a lexical category?

d. Is F, F a grammaticalized feature checked by X, strong (i.e. overtly attracts X)?


Parameter schemata

PV15 Grammaticalised Aspect

PV19 Strong Aspect V-to-Asp movement[… Vi+Asp [completely/well [… ti] ] ] (cf. Schifano 2015, 2018)

PV21 Aspect-checking V e.g. French imperfect:elle jou-ait she play-IMPERF:3S

“she was playing”

PV22 Aspect spread to V e.g. English progressive:she was playing


Parameter hierarchies

• Other parameters are taken/adapted from Roberts (2019) Parameter hierarchies and Universal Grammar (PHUG)


PV43 Grammaticalised Passive

PV44 Generalised Passive

PV45 Restricted Passive

PV46 By-phrase

Additional parameters

• Additional parameters account for further salient patterns of variation

• particularly patterns identified in The World Atlas of Language Structures(WALS; Haspelmath et al. 2005, Dryer & Haspelmath 2013, https://wals.info)

• e.g. PV17 Grammaticalised progressive, PV34 Grammaticalisation of Evidentiality, PV76 Imperative-checking V …


https://wals.info/

Parameters for EP(V)Numbers Type Comments

PV1–8 Φ-features, agreement, clitics Cf. PN1–3 and others

PV9–38 Tense, aspect, mood; evidentiality; voice

PV39–42 Auxiliaries, participle agreement

PV43–46 Passives PHUG passive hierarchy

PV47–51 Head-complement order / roll-up PHUG roll-up hierarchy, cf. PN4

PV52–59 Other movement / word order parameters, EPP etc.

PV60–65 Alignment PHUG ergative hierarchy (after Sheehan 2017)

PV66–72 Ditransitives PHUG ditransitive hierarchy (after Sheehan 2017)

PV73–76 Transitivity marking, causatives, imperatives

PV77–80 Q-checking, Q-particles

PV81–84 Negation

PV85–87 Miscellaneous (inc. noun incorporation, VP ellipsis)


Implicational relations

• Parameters valued + or –

• But sometimes value of parameter is predictable from that of other parameters• e.g. –PV9 Grammaticalised Tense => –PV10 Grammaticalised Past

–PV13 Tense-checking V etc.

• +PV53 Strong C => +PV12 Strong Tense etc. (Head Movement Constraint)

• These are notated as 0 (0+, 0–)• 0 values are excluded from the distance calculations


Investigating parameter values

• Questionnaire: expert for each language, mostly native speakers

• Phase 1: 13 languages

• Phase 2: a further 22 languages

• Aiming for 42 total


Collating the data


3. Results


Values of δ (= i / i + d)Eng Du Afr Ger Sw Fr It EP Ro Slo SBC Gk Fi

Eng 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.24 0.26

Du 0.21 0.00 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.34

Afr 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.42 0.39

Ger 0.27 0.12 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.34

Sw 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.34 0.27 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.29

Fr 0.34 0.24 0.39 0.26 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.28

It 0.33 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.26

EP 0.29 0.30 0.42 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.27

Ro 0.34 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.31

Slo 0.38 0.41 0.46 0.35 0.45 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.38

SBC 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.33 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.36

Gk 0.24 0.31 0.42 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.28 0.25 0.00 0.24

Fi 0.26 0.34 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.00


Values of δ and relatedness

• Following Bortolussi, Sgarro, Longobardi & Guardiano (2011: 7):

• δ < 0.20 : probable relatedness

• 0.20 < δ < 0.40 : diminishing likelihood of relatedness

• δ > 0.40 : almost certainly random


Eng Du Afr Ger Sw Fr It EP Ro Slo SBC Gk Fi

Eng 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.24 0.26

Du 0.21 0.00 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.34

Afr 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.42 0.39

Ger 0.27 0.12 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.34

Sw 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.34 0.27 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.29

Fr 0.34 0.24 0.39 0.26 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.28

It 0.33 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.26

EP 0.29 0.30 0.42 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.27

Ro 0.34 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.31

Slo 0.38 0.41 0.46 0.35 0.45 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.38

SBC 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.33 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.36

Gk 0.24 0.31 0.42 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.28 0.25 0.00 0.24

Fi 0.26 0.34 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.00

Closer relations


More distant languages

Eng Du Afr Ger Sw Fr It EP Ro Slo SBC Gk Fi

Eng 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.24 0.26

Du 0.21 0.00 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.34

Afr 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.42 0.39

Ger 0.27 0.12 0.28 0.00 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.34

Sw 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.34 0.27 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.29

Fr 0.34 0.24 0.39 0.26 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.28

It 0.33 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.26

EP 0.29 0.30 0.42 0.26 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.27

Ro 0.34 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.31

Slo 0.38 0.41 0.46 0.35 0.45 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.38

SBC 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.33 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.36

Gk 0.24 0.31 0.42 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.28 0.25 0.00 0.24

Fi 0.26 0.34 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.00


Phylogenetic trees

• Different methods produce slightly different trees

• Four methods employing the distance matrix on the previous slide used here, from the PHYLIP package:

• KITSCH

• FITCH

• NEIGHBOR:• UPGMA

• Neighbour joining


KITSCH


UPGMA


FITCH

20th May 2021 26

Neighbour joining


ParsimonySplits

• Included in the SplitsTree program

• Employs a maximum parsimony method

• Operates directly on representations of the parameter values


ParsimonySplits


Points of agreement between trees

(i) Romance-Greek proximity

(ii) SBC-Slovenian very close

(iii) close grouping between English, Swedish, Dutch and German

➢ all also in agreement with traditional method (apart from placement of Greek)


Points of disagreement

(i) outlier status of Afrikaans

• KITSCH only; other methods place Afrikaans within Germanic

(ii) precise placement of Slovenian/SBC

• as an outlier (KITSCH) or close to / within Romance-Greek


Other unexpected outcomes

• English (and Afrikaans) tend to group closer to Swedish than German/Dutch

• Afrikaans is never placed closest to Dutch

• No Finnish/IE distinction


4. Explanations in contact


Afrikaans and Germanic

• Afrikaans sometimes grouped with Swedish and English (NeighborJoining, FITCH);

• similar changes, albeit not to same extent;

• Dutch and German much more conservative (δ = 0.12).


English and Swedish

• English/Dutch: δ = 0.21, English/Swedish: δ = 0.22;

• Extensive contact between English and North Germanic;

• Jespersen (1938: 76), Mitchell and Robinson (1992: 133), Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 263ff.), Emonds & Faarlund (2014), Crisma & Pintzuk (2019);

• Also contact between English and Celtic, French.


Greek

• Confluence of typological / historical / contact factors:

• going back to ancient contact between Greek and Latin in Magna Graecia;

• continuing uninterruptedly to the modern era.

• (see Horrocks 1997: 73-78; Clackson & Horrocks 2007: 184-98)


Slovenian and SBC

• Clearly extremely closely related: no variation in representation of this;

• most trees represent the relation between these languages and Romance-Greek;

• Balkan Sprachbund• according to δ values, Slovenian/SBC are closest to Greek and Romanian;

• but also closer average relationship to rest of Romance than to Germanic/Finnish – other factors?


Finnish

• never represented on a branch separate from Indo-European;

• extensive contact with IE:

• borrowings from Proto-Germanic demonstrate contact over at least 2000 years (Kylstra et al 1991, Kallio 2012);

• though in terms of δ values Finnish is closer to Romance than Germanic on average: possibly sampling bias??

• Cf. Ceolin et al (2020: 11, 14) “Indo-Europeanization” of Balto-Finnic:

• Finnish and Estonian have set a few nominal parameters to values coinciding with typical Indo-European ones and differing from the rest of Uralic.


Contact and the PCM

• Points of disagreement: contact likely involved;

• Phylogenetic methods, in general, reliably register “vertical” (genetic) relationships;

• “Horizontal” (contact/areal) relationships may be registered in differences between individual methods, where the effect is particularly strong;

• Potential heuristic for identifying possible contact-induced change.


A time window for contact effects?

• Ceolin et al (2021: 6): the PCM has generally shown that “the disruption of the syntactic phylogenetic signal by well-documented but relatively recent convergence and borrowing (i.e. the past 1000/1500 years) is quite limited.”• (see also Ceolin et al 2020: 12)

• Less time depth than Dryer’s (1992) genus: “genetic group[] roughly comparable in time depth to the subfamilies of Indo-European.”• e.g. Germanic, generally dated to the first millennium BC (Fortson 2010: 338)


Meso- and micro-parameters and contact

• If meso-parameters define genera (Roberts 2019: 75), this suggests the contact effects observed all involve micro-parameters;

• Exception: Greek-Romance:

• Contact going back 2500 years (Ceolin et al 2020: 12 and references in their note 55);

• Typological/genetic closeness between Greek and Latin;

• Certain meso-parameters shared among Latin/Romance and Greek?


Other open questions

• Might different extended projections reflect contact influence in different ways?

• E.g. EP(V) more susceptible to contact-induced change than EP(N)? (see Crisma & Pintzuk 2019).

• Might different domains reflect contact influence differently?

• E.g. more contact influence in left periphery / higher up the EP?


5. Future prospects


The older Indo-European languages

• Currently investigating EP(V) parameter values for various older IE languages (Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, Classical Latin, Old English; M. Meelen: Gothic, Middle Welsh, Old Irish; M. Mitrović: Old Church Slavonic).

• Intention is to expand to other branches of IE, providing a basis for syntactic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European on the basis of an application of the comparative method to the parameter sets.


δ values for older IE


Hittite Sanskrit Latin Old English

Hittite 0.00 0.32 0.21 0.30

Sanskrit 0.32 0.00 0.19 0.21

Latin 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.23

Old English 0.30 0.21 0.23 0.00

Latin and Romance: δ values

• Latin/French 0.28

• Latin/Italian 0.31

• Latin/Portuguese 0.26

• Latin/Romanian 0.23

➢ Larger than inter-Romance (range 0.08 to 0.22);

➢ the Romance languages are parametrically more similar to each other than any of them are to Latin: cf. Longobardi (2012:308-9) for the same conclusion regarding their DP-syntax.


Old English and Germanic

• OE’s relative closeness to (present-day) German, Dutch suggests again that the position of PDE is due to more recent developments (largely contact-induced).


Old English Present-Day English

Present-Day English 0.25 0.00

Present-Day German 0.17 0.27

Present-Day Dutch 0.20 0.21

Present-Day Swedish 0.29 0.22

Present-Day Afrikaans 0.34 0.26

6. Conclusion


Conclusion

A synthesis of:

• syntactic theory (what the parameters actually are);

• historical linguistics (computing historical relations);

• psycholinguistics (implications of relations);

• computational methods (phylogenetic tree-optimisation).

4920th May 2021 Baker & Roberts - Extending Parametric Comparison

THANK YOU!


References (1)

• Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2018). Evidentiality: The Framework. In A.Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Baker, M. (1995). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Baker, M. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Belletti, A. (2001). “Inversion” as Focalization. In A. Hulk and J. Pollock (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.

• Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. (1989). Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publisher.

• Biberauer, T. (2017). Factors 2 and 3: a principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: 38–65.

• Biberauer, T. (2018). Less is More: on the Tolerance Principle as a manifestation of Maximise Minimal Means, Commentary on C. Yang (2018) ‘A Formalist Perspective onLanguage Acquisition’. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8: 707–711.

• Biberauer, T. and I. Roberts (2017). Conditional inversion and types of parametric change. In B. Los and P. de Haan (eds.) Word Order Change in Acquisition and LanguageContact, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Bortolussi, L., A. Sgarro, G. Longobardi and C. Guardiano (2011). How many possible languages are there? Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 228.

• Ceolin, A., C. Guardiano, M.-A. Irimia, G. Longobardi (2020). Formal Syntax and Deep History. Frontiers in Psychology 11.

• Ceolin, A., C. Guardiano, G. Longobardi, M.-A. Irimia, L. Bortolussi and A. Sgarro (2021). Assessing prehistoric language families through formal syntax. Transactions of theRoyal Society B. 376: 20200197.

• Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press.


References (2)

• Clackson, J. and G. Horrocks. (2007). The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

• Clark, R. and I. Roberts (1993). A Computational Approach to Language Learnability and Language Change. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.

• Crisma, P. and S. Pintzuk (2019). The noun phrase and the ‘Viking hypothesis’. Language Variation and Change 31: 219–246.

• Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Dryer, M.S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.

• Dryer, M.S. and M. Haspelmath (2013). World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://wals.info.

• Emonds, J. and J.-T. Faarlund (2014). English: The Language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Olomouc Modern Language Monographs 3.

• Fortson, B. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn.

• Gianollo, C., C. Guardiano and G. Longobardi. (2008). Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In T. Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 109–142.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Guardiano, C. and G. Longobardi (2003). Parametric Syntax as a Source of Historical-comparative Generalisations. Ms., University of Trieste.

• Haspelmath, M., M.S. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie. (2005). The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Holmberg, A. (2000). Deriving OV order in Finnish. In: P. Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Horrocks, G. (1997). Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. London: Longman.

• Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

• Jespersen, O. (1938). Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford: Blackwell.


https://wals.info/

References (3)

• Kallio, P. (2012). “The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic”. In R. Grünthal and P. Kallio, A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, 225–238. (Mémoiresde la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 266.) Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

• Kylstra, A. D., S.-L. Hahmo, T. Hofstra, and O. Nikkilä. (1991). Lexikon der Älteren Germanischen Lehnwörter in den Ostseefinnischen Sprachen, Band I: A-J. Amsterdam:Rodopi.

• Ledgeway, A. and M. Maiden (2016). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Longobardi, G. (2012). Convergence in parametric phylogenies: homoplasy or principled explanation? In C. Galves, S. Cyrino, R. Lopes, F. Sandalo and J. Avelar (eds.),Parameter Theory and Language Change, 314–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Longobardi, G. (2018). Principles, Parameters, and Schemata: a radically underspecified UG. Linguistic Analysis 41:517–557.

• Longobardi, G., C. Guardiano, G. Silvestri, A. Boattini, and A. Ceolin. (2013). Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. Journal of HistoricalLinguistics 3(1), 122–152. Appendix at http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.1.07lon.additional.

• Mitchell, B., and F. Robinson. (1992). A Guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell.

• Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field: Evidence Form Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford University Press.

• Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schifano, N. (2015). The paradigmatic instantiation of TAM: A novelapproach to Romance verb movement. In E. Aboh, J. Schaeffer and P. Sleeman (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Schifano, N. (2018). Verb movement in Romance: A comparative approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Sheehan, M. (2017). Lecture series on parameter hierarchies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, July 2017.

• Thomason, S. and T. Kaufman. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.1.07lon.additional

extending parametric comparison: some preliminary results

Documents