8/10/2019 On the form and functioning of mapping parameters

1/1

On the Form and Functioning of Mapping Parameters

Giuseppe Longobardi longbard@units.it

Universit di Trieste

In this presentation, I will explore how we may begin to design a restrictive minimalist theory

of parametric variation and will argue that such an approach, based on considerations ofsimplicity and conceptual necessity, may naturally lead us to also attain a higher degree of the

classical explanatory adequacy in one intricate area of the syntax/semantics interface.

In this spirit, it will be suggested that most or all syntactic parameters fall into a very limited

set of recurrent formal schemata or formats, which may be instantiated in the same way on a

huge number of features or syntactic categories variable from language to language. Each of

these formats might in principle be conceptually justifiable and evolutionarily understandable

with respect to one of its instantiations and could be regarded as later extended to other

categories, so explaining the proliferation of parametric variation through grammars. It will be

argued that among the most pervasive schemata of parametric variation are formats like the

following: is a certain feature F grammaticalized or not in language L? Is a certain

grammaticalized feature strong or not in L? Many syntactic features appear to becrosslinguistically polymorphic precisely along such dimensions, which are actually

reminiscent of proposals by Kuroda (1992) and Huang (1982), respectively.

A specific version of this framework will be applied to the controversial domain of nominal

mapping parameters (Chierchia 1998). Since Longobardi (1994), it has been argued that in

Romance there is a unique and syntactically specifiable position, traditionally labeled D,

serving as the locus for reference to individuals (either type of Carlsonian individuals, namely

kinds or objects) in the structure of nominal phrases (Topological Mapping Theory, TMT).

Thus, only referential constants (essentially lexical nouns) overtly associated with D seem to

be able to refer to kinds (common nouns) or objects (proper names). In particular, a D

remaining lexically empty cannot be a referential constant and will imply the interpretation of

the DP as a variable. The existence of languages exhibiting a way of pairing nominal

structures with interpretations which is superficially different from that identified in Romance

points toward the need for some parametric theory of nominal mapping. In this paper I want

to address two questions:

1) Why is precisely D specialized as the position for reference to individuals?

2) Why are there languages with apparently different mapping strategies?

Under the restrictive theory of phrase structure proposed by Chomsky (1995, ch 4.), requiring

each syntactic object to consist of at least one feature interpretable in the A-P or C-I system

(i.e. not just of formal, uninterpretable features), the first question will be addressed by

identifying D with the Person head (cf. Platzack 2004, Bernstein 2005) and by arguing that

the latter feature is a crucial ingredient to allow type-shifting from property- to individual-denotation.

Under the announced minimalist theory of parameter formats, the second question will be

addressed by showing that all and only the possible polymorphic realizations of the feature

Person admitted by such a theory (+ grammaticalized Person, + strong Person) are

crosslinguistically instantiated and determine exactly the three major types of languages so far

observed with respect to nominal mapping phenomena, saliently exemplified, among other

varieties, by Japanese, English, and Italian.