How variational acquisition drives syntactic change The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian
How variational acquisition drives syntactic change The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian
复制标题
变分习得如何驱动句法变化 斯堪的纳维亚语中动词运动的丧失
DOI：
10.1007/s10828-013-9056-0
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Heycock C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Heycock C
虽然语言习得经常被认为是句法变化的原因，但将正式的习得模型应用于语言变化的实际案例并对其预测进行实证检验的工作相对较少。在这里，我们测试杨（语言变异和变化12：231-250，2000年）的模型在法罗群岛和斯堪的纳维亚大陆的动词运动到时态（V到T）的损失的历史情况下，使用定量数据从一些语料库。我们表明，该模型直接预测的历史数据，最低限度的和无争议的假设斯堪的纳维亚的句法。与以前试图解释这种重复变化模式的一些尝试相反，没有必要诉诸任何对涉及V到T的学习结构的偏见--鉴于目前的习得证据，这是一个受欢迎的结果。较新的V-in-situ参数设置克服了原始的V-to-T语法，因为它在也具有嵌入式动词秒（EV 2）的语言中更容易学习。最后，我们认为，历时变化的过程是对“丰富的协议假说”（RAH）的强版本的证据，但在这个帐户下，冰岛语的V到T的稳定性提供了证据，为较弱的版本（cf。Bobaljik，Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6：129-167，2002）。
Although language acquisition is frequently invoked as a cause of syntactic change, there has been relatively little work applying a formal model of acquisition to an actual case of language change and testing its predictions empirically. Here we test the model of Yang (Language Variation and Change12: 231–250, 2000) on the historical case of the loss of verb movement to Tense (V-to-T) in Faroese and Mainland Scandinavian, using quantitative data from a number of corpora. We show that the model straightforwardly predicts the historical data, given minimal and uncontroversial assumptions about Scandinavian syntax. In contrast to a number of previous attempts to explain this repeated pattern of change, it is not necessary to appeal to any bias against learning structures involving V-to-T—a welcome result, given current evidence from acquisition. The newer V-in-situ parameter setting overcomes the original V-to-T grammar because it is more learnable in a language that also has embedded verb-second (EV2). Finally, we argue that the course of the diachronic change is evidence against a strong version of the “Rich Agreement Hypothesis” (RAH), but that under this account the stability of V-to-T in Icelandic provides evidence for the weaker version (cf. Bobaljik,Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics6: 129–167, 2002).