User:FulcoE/sandbox

Head Parameter

Antisymmetry

Main article: Antisymmetry

In response to the categorical proposal of Chomsky that languages can be either head-initial or head-final, Richard S. Kayne proposes the Spec-Head-Complement order, 'Antisymmetry Theory,' in which all languages are underlyingly the same. Antisymmetry focuses on directionality parameters (or lack there of) in contrast to the standard view offered by Noam Chomsky in his 1980 Principles and Parameters theory. One of the main implications of Chomsky's theory is that the syntactical universe must be symmetric in order to reflect the bidirectional nature of parameters: when broken down to its core, syntactic symmetry predicts that for every structure a corresponding mirror-image of that structure should also exist. Contrasting Chomsky's theory is Antisymmetry by Richard Kayne, who bases his theory on two main cross-linguistic asymmetries: syntactic structures found in natural languages seldom have a corresponding mirror-image existing in another language, and no two languages have ever been found to be the exact mirror-copy of each other. Antisymmetry offers a solution to these cross-linguistic asymmetries: by denying the existence of parameters and proposing a universal syntactic structure asymmetries can be accounted for in terms of different syntactic movements applied by languages. That is, even apparent symmetric pairs such as Verbo-Object in English and Object-Verb in Japanese are underlyingly identical and only differ in the application of syntactic movements altering their initial structure, thus deriving different surface structures.

Evidence

As argued by Richard S. Kayne, subscribing to a theory that allows both directionalities (as the English/Japanese Verb-Object/Object-Verb) implies an absence of asymmetries. The following are a few of the linguistic examples revealing asymmetries in support of Kayne's theory: hanging topics, agreement, and relative clauses.

• Hanging topics are the results of a copy-operation that enters a Noun Phrase (NP) in the sentence (usually at the edge of it)

(28) Der Hans - ich kenne diesen Kerl seit langem the.NOM Hans - I know this guy for a long time Hans - I've known this guy for a long time

(28) (Nolda 2004, p. 424) shows that in German a Noun Phrase, like der Hans, can be inserted onto the left edge of the sentence, here a copy of the same reference of diesen Kerl. The fact that no occurrence of hanging topics at the right edge of a sentence has been attested (Kayne 2011, p. 4) provides evidence in support of Antisymmetry.

• Number agreement is stronger when the Noun Phrase precedes the Verb (V), as stated in Greenberg's Universal 33.The following is an English example (Kayne 2011, p. 7) showing number agreement:

(29) There are books on the table

Kayne argues that the position of there (which is a copy of the number feature of books) in (29) is due a process that moved the object to the left of the Verb. This is to show the idea that any OV position is the result of syntactic applications on the underlying representation. Further examples of these movements can be seen in Italian (Kayne 2011, p. 7), where the position of the object NP is attributed to movement:

(30) Li ho visti Them I-have seen(m.pl) (31) *Ho visti loro *I-have seen(m.pl) them (32) I libri saranno visti The books will-be seen(m.pl) (33) *Ho visti i libri *I-have seen(m.pl) the books

In (30) the Verb visti can agree when preceded by a Noun Phrase (li) but in (31) it cannot do so when followed by one (loro). (33) shows that the Verb visti and the Noun Phrase i libri agree only when the Noun Phrase is preceding the Verb, as in (32).

• Relative clauses show three main differences:

1. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) generally lack complementizers akin to English that

(34) [Popo maai] di tong-tong ne? grandmother buy CLF candy PTCL what about the candy that grandmother bought?

(34) (Comrie 2008, p. 729) shows a prenominal relative clause of Cantonese that lacks complementizers. In contrast, the English translation of (34) uses that as a complementizer (it must be noted that in this case that is optional, as English allows zero relative pronoun constructions).

2. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) usually lack relative pronouns

(35) [raketto-o katta] gakusei racket-ACC bought student the student [who bought the racket]

In (35) (Ozeki 2011, p. 174) one can notice that the Japanese version lacks a relative pronoun, while the English version (the translation) must use the relative pronoun who in order to maintain the same meaning of the Japanese sentence.

3. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) tend to be non-finite. Example (36) (Courtney 2011, p. 150) is from Quecha (Conchucos), and shows that the Verb in the prenominal relative clause is non-finite (as explained by Courtney, the ASP -nqa- indicates completed, ongoing, or at least begun action, making the Verb non-finite).

(36) [runa maqa-nqa-n waka]-ta eika-rqa man hit-ASP-3sg cow -ACC see-PST-1sg I saw [the cow that the man hit]

Overall, the lack of prenominal counterparts to postnominal relative clauses alone enforces the asymmetric point of view of Kayne, as asymmetries the kind shown in 34-(36) are not predicted by symmetrical syntactic theory

In support of Kayne's movement theory, Tokizaki proposes the following complement movement structure:

(37) a. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP N [Genitive Affix Stem]]]]]] b. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP N [Genitive Stem Affix]]]]]] c. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N]]]]] d. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P]]]] e. [CP C [IP ... [VP [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P] V]]] f. [CP [IP ... [VP [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P] V]] C] (Tokizaki 2011, p. 238)

As per the problem brought up by Elordieta about the application of (27) to Basque, Kayne's theory also poses a problem in that it would involve massive leftward movements within Basque (and other languages') structure to match up to the theorized universal order of an underlying head-initial structure, which would not coincide with a simple grammar ideal (Elordieta 2014, p. 5).

Kayne offers more examples of linguistic asymmetries, here listed:

• Clitics and clitic dislocation
• Serial verbs
• Coordination
• Forward and backward pronominalization

Derivational Antisymmetry

<Head-Complement> or <Complement-Head>

In order to support the view of an unidirectional underlying structure, probe-goal search is introduced. The idea of probes and goals in syntax is that a Head (H) acts as a probe and looks for a goal, a Complement (C). The direction of the search is determined by whether the language is probe-initial <Head-Complement> or probe-final <Complement-Head>. Antisymmetry Theory proposes that languages are universally probe-initial, based on the following statement (Kayne 2011, p. 12):

(38) Probe-goal search shares the directionality of parsing and of production

When referring to language comprehension, parsing is the analysis of a string of grammatical constituents (a sentence or phrase). Parsing happens as a hearer hears a sentence: the beginning of a sentence is heard first and the end is heard last. Behaving similarly is production (the encoding of a message into a linguistic form): a speaker produces a sentence in a linear, progressive order, with the beginning of the sentence said first and the end said last. Following these descriptions, (38) implies that the Head (probe) of a sentence must precede the Complement (goal), as there cannot be a goal without a probe first. Therefore, probe-goal search proceeds on a unidirectional path, which can be mapped onto the terms left and right when used in a familiar way; point (38) solves the dilemma of choosing between <Head-Complement> or <Complement-Head>, ruling out the existence of <Complement-Head> in favor of always merging Head and Complement into <Head-Complement>.

<Subject, {Head, Complement}> or <{Head, Complement}, Subject>

In order to account for the merge of the Subject (S), Kayne proposes the following (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

(39) The merger of two phrases is unavailable

With (39) in play, the Subject is then understood to merge with <Head-Complement> internally, as showed in the following representation (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

(40) S H [c...S...]

(40) shows how the Subject (S), at first internal to the Complement (here _c to identify the domain of C, which is represented by the brackets), is moved to the left of the Head (H), thus avoiding the merge of two phrases. By allowing pair-merge (a process of only merging in pairs - to represent temporal precedence in terms understood as of (38) in the section above), the structure in (40) can be represented as the following (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

(41)<S, H> <H, C>

Notable of structure in (41) is that it can also be mapped onto X-Bar theory syntactic trees as shown in figure (to be added). Each pair-merge is shown separately, with the Subject aligned to the Head on its right and the Complement aligned to the Head on its left; this mapping respects the binary branching of X-Bar theory, as well as showing that the Head pair-merged to the Complement is the same one pair-merged to the Subject. Following this process ultimately leads to the precedence relation <S, H, C>, which is the sequence that Antisymmetry Theory predicts to be the base structure that every language universally uses (and thus any variation is due syntactic movement).

Antisymmetry Draft

Introduction

Antisymmetry focuses on directionality parameters (or lack there of) in contrast to the standard view offered by Noam Chomsky in his 1980 Principles and Parameters theory. One of the main implications of Chomsky's theory is that the syntactical universe must be symmetric in order to reflect the bidirectional nature of parameters: when broken down to its core, syntactic symmetry predicts that for every structure a corresponding mirror-image of that structure should also exist. Contrasting Chomsky's theory is Antisymmetry by Richard Kayne, who bases his theory on two main cross-linguistic asymmetries: syntactic structures found in natural languages seldom have a corresponding mirror-image existing in another language, and no two languages have ever been found to be the exact mirror-copy of each other. Antisymmetry offers a solution to these cross-linguistic asymmetries: by denying the existence of parameters and proposing a universal syntactic structure asymmetries can be accounted for in terms of different syntactic movements applied by languages. That is, even apparent symmetric pairs such as Verbo-Object in English and Object-Verb in Japanese are underlyingly identical and only differ in the application of syntactic movements altering their initial structure, thus deriving different surface structures.

Evidence

As argued by Richard S. Kayne, subscribing to a theory that allows both directionalities (as the English/Japanese Verb-Object/Object-Verb) implies an absence of asymmetries. The following are a few of the linguistic examples revealing asymmetries in support of Kayne's theory: hanging topics, agreement, and relative clauses.

• Hanging topics are the results of a copy-operation that enters a Noun Phrase (NP) in the sentence (usually at the edge of it)

27) Der Hans - ich kenne diesen Kerl seit langem the.NOM Hans - I know this guy for a long time Hans - I've known this guy for a long time

The example above (Nolda 2004, p. 424) shows that in German a Noun Phrase, like der Hans, can be inserted onto the left edge of the sentence, here a copy of the same reference of diesen Kerl. The fact that no occurrence of hanging topics at the right edge of a sentence has been attested (Kayne 2011, p. 4) provides evidence in support of Antisymmetry.

• Number agreement is stronger when the Noun Phrase precedes the Verb (V), as stated in Greenberg's Universal 33.The following is an English example (Kayne 2011, p. 7) showing number agreement:

28) There are books on the table

Kayne argues that the position of there (which is a copy of the number feature of books) in 28) is due a process that moved the object to the left of the Verb. This is to show the idea that any OV position is the result of syntactic applications on the underlying representation. Further examples of these movements can be seen in Italian (Kayne 2011, p. 7), where the position of the object NP is attributed to movement:

29) Li ho visti Them I-have seen(m.pl) 30) *Ho visti loro *I-have seen(m.pl) them 31) I libri saranno visti The books will-be seen(m.pl) 32) *Ho visti i libri *I-have seen(m.pl) the books

In 29) the Verb visti can agree when preceded by a Noun Phrase (li) but in 30) it cannot do so when followed by one (loro). 32) shows that the Verb visti and the Noun Phrase i libri agree only when the Noun Phrase is preceding the Verb, as in 31).

• Relative clauses show three main differences:

1. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) generally lack complementizers akin to English that

33) [Popo maai] di tong-tong ne? grandmother buy CLF candy PTCL what about the candy that grandmother bought?

33) (Comrie 2008, p. 729) shows a prenominal relative clause of Cantonese that lacks complementizers. In contrast, the English translation of 33) uses that as a complementizer (it must be noted that in this case that is optional, as English allows zero relative pronoun constructions).

2. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) usually lack relative pronouns

34) [raketto-o katta] gakusei racket-ACC bought student the student [who bought the racket]

In 34) (Ozeki 2011, p. 174) one can notice that the Japanese version lacks a relative pronoun, while the English version (the translation) must use the relative pronoun who in order to maintain the same meaning of the Japanese sentence.

3. Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) tend to be non-finite. Example 35) (Courtney 2011, p. 150) is from Quecha (Conchucos), and shows that the Verb in the prenominal relative clause is non-finite (as explained by Courtney, the ASP -nqa- indicates completed, ongoing, or at least begun action, making the Verb non-finite).

35) [runa maqa-nqa-n waka]-ta eika-rqa man hit-ASP-3sg cow -ACC see-PST-1sg I saw [the cow that the man hit]

Overall, the lack of prenominal counterparts to postnominal relative clauses alone enforces the asymmetric point of view of Kayne, as asymmetries the kind shown in 33-35) are not predicted by symmetrical syntactic theory

In support of Kayne's movement theory, Tokizaki proposes the following complement movement structure:

(28) a. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP N [Genitive Affix Stem]]]]]] b. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP N [Genitive Stem Affix]]]]]] c. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP P [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N]]]]] d. [CP C [IP ... [VP V [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P]]]] e. [CP C [IP ... [VP [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P] V]]] f. [CP [IP ... [VP [PP [NP [Genitive Stem Affix] N] P] V]] C] (Tokizaki 2011, p. 238)

As per the problem brought up by Elordieta about the application of (27) to Basque, Kayne's theory also poses a problem in that it would involve massive leftward movements within Basque (and other languages') structure to match up to the theorized universal order of an underlying head-initial structure, which would not coincide with a simple grammar ideal (Elordieta 2014, p. 5).

Kayne offers more examples of linguistic asymmetries, here listed:

• Clitics and clitic dislocation
• Serial verbs
• Coordination
• Forward and backward pronominalization

Derivational Antisymmetry

<Head-Complement> or <Complement-Head>

In order to support the view of an unidirectional underlying structure, probe-goal search is introduced. The idea of probes and goals in syntax is that a Head (H) acts as a probe and looks for a goal, a Complement (C). The direction of the search is determined by whether the language is probe-initial <Head-Complement> or probe-final <Complement-Head>. Antisymmetry Theory proposes that languages are universally probe-initial, based on the following statement (Kayne 2011, p. 12):

32) Probe-goal search shares the directionality of parsing and of production

When referring to language comprehension, parsing is the analysis of a string of grammatical constituents (a sentence or phrase). Parsing happens as a hearer hears a sentence: the beginning of a sentence is heard first and the end is heard last. Behaving similarly is production (the encoding of a message into a linguistic form): a speaker produces a sentence in a linear, progressive order, with the beginning of the sentence said first and the end said last. Following these descriptions, 32) implies that the Head (probe) of a sentence must precede the Complement (goal), as there cannot be a goal without a probe first. Therefore, probe-goal search proceeds on a unidirectional path, which can be mapped onto the terms left and right when used in a familiar way; point 32) solves the dilemma of choosing between <Head-Complement> or <Complement-Head>, ruling out the existence of <Complement-Head> in favor of always merging Head and Complement into <Head-Complement>.

<Subject, {Head, Complement}> or <{Head, Complement}, Subject>

In order to account for the merge of the Subject (S), Kayne proposes the following (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

32) The merger of two phrases is unavailable

With 32) in play, the Subject is then understood to merge with <Head-Complement> internally, as showed in the following representation (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

33) S H [c...S...]

33) shows how the Subject (S), at first internal to the Complement (here _c to identify the domain of C, which is represented by the brackets), is moved to the left of the Head (H), thus avoiding the merge of two phrases. By allowing pair-merge (a process of only merging in pairs - to represent temporal precedence in terms understood as of (#) in the section above), the structure in 33) can be represented as the following (Kayne 2011, p. 15):

34)<S, H> <H, C>

Notable of structure in 34) is that it can also be mapped onto X-Bar theory syntactic trees as shown in figure (to be added). Each pair-merge is shown separately, with the Subject aligned to the Head on its right and the Complement aligned to the Head on its left; this mapping respects the binary branching of X-Bar theory, as well as showing that the Head pair-merged to the Complement is the same one pair-merged to the Subject. Following this process ultimately leads to the precedence relation <S, H, C>, which is the sequence that Antisymmetry Theory predicts to be the base structure that every language universally uses (and thus any variation is due syntactic movement).

Antisymmetry Notes

In this study, Richard S. Kayne addresses what appear to be symmetries between languages (such as the VO/OV pair of English/Japanese); these are argued to be actually due hierarchical structures. In head directionality, the final (surface) position is derived from hierarchical movement, meaning that a neutral structure is used as the starting base for movement (dictated by hierarchical structures). This view follows the previous work of Kayne in 1994 in “The Antisymmetry of Syntax”, which poses forth the notion that mirror-images of well-formed language forms should (by Antisymmetry standards) not be found considered well-formed in any other language. Here, Kayne’s Antisymmetric view is kept closely parallel to the derivational syntax of context-free grammar.

24) AS: Antisymmetry of Syntax 25) For any subtree that is well formed in a language, the mirror-image of that subtree cannot be well-formed in any language 26) Head directionality differences are due hierarchical structures of elements

OV order and Antisymmetry

At first, Kayne turns to syntactic movements involved in OV order; the following existential (extracted from his work on Antisymmetry) is presented:

27) OV can never be associated with a structure in which O is sitting in the Complement position of V

Stemming from this, Kayne presents different cross-linguistic data in order to show how OV structure is always a result of the object moving to the left of the verb (in support of Antisymmetry). In English, the sentence They are having their car washed is an example of the object moving past and then preceding the verb it is object of:

28) They are having their car washed

Another example of an object independently moving in pre-verbal position can be seen in German and Dutch IPP sentences: their SOAuxVV construction requires for the object to precede the auxiliary verb, and failing to do so results in ungrammaticality:

29) Ich glaube dass er das Buch hätte lesen wollen 30)*Ich glaube dass er hätte das Buch lesen wollen

31) SOAuxV: O cannot be in the complement position 32) Object Movement: SO1AuxVt1

A less independent movement of the object from post- to pre-verbal position is found even in languages where pre-verbal object position is considered canonical. The following structure coincides with the ‘natural’ order of some languages (such as Korean); The assumption is that Neg is merged outside the VP, meaning that the pre-Neg position of the object is the result of movement. Furthermore, it is argued that SONegV structure is formed via remnant-VP movement: movement of an XP β from which extraction of α has taken place earlier in the derivation:

33) Remnant Movement: [β2 … t1 …] … [ … α1 … [ … t2 …]]

When adapted to a natural language, the following structure represent remnant-VP movement:

34) [VP2 …t1 … O…] Neg [… V1 … [ t2 ]]

Languages such as Lokạạ have remnant movement behaving similarly to the above example even when the negation is replace with other cases, particularly with auxiliaries, gerundive morphemes, and mood morphemes:

35) SOXV

The Lokạạ structure is remarkably similar to the one in German, where X is replaced by an auxiliary (as seen in (29) and (30))

Taking the examples of remnant movement, Kayne argues that, despite an object moves in pre-verbal position, withing the remnant-VP the object could very well still be in complement position, creating troubles for an antisymmetric analysis. A second existential is then proposed:

36) All arguments must move at least once

This is supported by the fact that it is unclear whether the object sits in the complement position of the remnant-VP given that objects are allowed to move from their merge position to fulfill certain requirements (e.g. EPP). The proposed existential is further supported by the VP-internal subject hypothesis, preposition as probes, and rising of objects to [Spec, V]

With this section, Kayne shows how every syntactic structure in which the object precedes the verb is a result of movement: whether pre-verbal object is a canonical configuration or not, movement of the object is always involved. This faculty is allowed given the nature of all arguments provided by Kayne in (36). These two points serve Antisymmetry by demonstrating that OV never surfaces ‘naturally’.

Cross-Linguistic Gaps and Asymmetries

In this section, further cross-linguistic data is analyzed, in a process aiming at uncovering antisymmetric structures of syntactic derivation as well as debunking the notion of head-directionality symmetry. Kayne focuses on particular cases in languages that show an intrinsic asymmetry of syntax, asymmetry that feeds the Antisymmetry of Syntax theory.

Hanging Topics

Hanging topics occour at the left-edge of a sentence, as shown by Cinque in Italian. While topic constituents being detached to the left is recorded in other different languages, Kanye argues that no instances of hanging topics detached to the right-edge of a sentence have been attested in natural languages.

Clitic Dislocation

A brief comment on clitic dislocation shows their particular behaviour; while clitics can be dislocated both to the left or the right, yet their distribution is asymmetric: no SVO language entirely lacks Clitic Left-Disclocation (CLLD), while CLRD can be dispensed in SVO languages

Agreement

Greenberg’s Universal 33 suggests that number agreement in “…NP… V…” is more prevalent than in “…V…NP…”. This is then further generalized into the following existential:

37) Verbal number agreement always requires that the NP (or DP) in question precede the verb at some stage of the derivation

This can be extensively seen in Italian:

38) Li ho visti *Ho visti loro

The verb visti can agree with the pre-verbal li, but never agrees with the post-verbal loro. This is similarly seen in passive constructions:

39) I libri saranno visti *Ho visti i libri

In which visti cannot agree with the post-verbal i libri. In Italian, transitive sentences the verb seemingly agrees with the following subject:

40) Lo hanno mangiato i gatti

Here it is argued that Lo hanno mangiato has moved to the left past the subject, explaining why hanno agrees with the post-verbal subject. Further analysis of Italian shows, however, that wh-movements do not license pre-verbal agreement:

41) *Quali libri hai letti?

Relative Clauses

When looking at cross-linguistic data regarding relative clauses, Kayne shows us three substantial differences in how the relative clauses have shown to surface as:

42) Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) generally lack complementizers akin to English that 43) Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) usually lack relative pronouns 44) Prenominal relatives (as opposed to postnominal relatives) tend to be non-finite

A symmetric syntax would not predict these differences, as the prenominal relatives should be the mirror-image of postnominal relatives. Antisymmetry, however, is fed by these asymmetries given the core nature of the theory itself: prenominal relatives are in fact originally generated postnominally. This type of leftward movement can be seen in Turkic languages, and has been observed by Kornfilt in both Sakha and Uigur. The following existential is then posed, an existential that holds in an asymmetric syntactic universe:

45) No postnominal relatives ever have their subject determining agreement that precedes the ‘head’ noun

This predicts the absence of a mirror-structure of the two Turkic languages seen above, based on the fact that no counterpart can surface.

Serial Verbs

In natural languages, serial verb constructions are constant in regards to the order of the verbs relative to one another: the higher verb consistently precedes the lower verb (and the hierarchical order can vary from language to language). This shown in German and English, where English doesn’t allow movement of serial verbs while German does:

46) We believe that John has telephoned 47) Wir galuben dass John telefoniert hat

In English, the auxiliary is always followed by verb, while German allows the participle telfoniert to precede the auxiliary. Kayne ties this characteristic of serial verbs to the antisymmetric syntactic view: the fact that a lower verb consistently follows its higher verb reflects the structure of a complement following its (higher) verb.

Coordination

In English, when taking into account coordination between NPs/DPs by means of and, there is one structure only that can be followed:

48) NP and NP 49) *NP NP and 50) *and NP NP

Given the lack of movement that is found in a simple coordination of this kind, it is argued that the structure found in English coordination is representative of the basic, movement-less, ‘natural’ structure. In Antisymmetry, and is the head while the two NPs are respectively specifier and complement of the head.

Forward vs. Backward Pronominalization

Kanye presents the following two examples, the first one being an example of forward pronominalization, while the second one shows backward pronominalization; in both cases, neither the r-expression nor the pronoun c-commands the other:

51) The fact that John is here means that he’s well again 52) The fact that he’s here means that John is well again

While English is shown to allow both directions of pronominalization, (Michel DeGraff) in Haitian creole backward pronominalization is impossible. Similarly, Jacaltec doesn’t show any backward pronominalization either, while languages such as Chinese, Dutch, and Malayalam show such construction much less frequently than in English.However, forward pronominalization in natural languages is never partially nor completely prohibited in a parallel manner. This shows an asymmetry in non-c-commanding antecedent-pronoun relations, a point that plays against symmetry in language (but applies within Antisymmetry)

A More Derivational Antisymmetry

Antisymmetry can be transported onto a more derivational framework (the likes of Chomsky’s), and this section provides a general account of asymmetry as well as the argument that the Faculty of Language has Head-Complement order (rather than Complement-Head), and that the Specifier has to be on the opposite side of the Head from the Complement.

Precedence

Kayne begins by adopting an alternative view of Merge: rather than creating {X, Y} sets, it should create the already ordered <X, Y>. While it adds complexity to Merge itself, this view alleviates Spellout of specifying precedence relations as well as giving the possibility to two orders only: <X, Y> or <Y, X>, which, in head-directionality, would constitute <H, C> or <C, H>. Kanye follows by explaining why <H, C> is chosen above <C, H>

Probes Precede Goals - Internal Merge

In internal merges, a probe (H) searches for a goal (contained within C). The direction of the search is determined by whether the language is probe-initial (H-C) or probe-final (C-H). If one assumes the existential:

53) Probe-goal search shares the directionality of parsing and of production

which can be generally carried over onto:

54) Probe-goal search proceeds from left to right

Given that the probe is the head and the goal is contained within the complement, the following arises naturally:

55) Head and complement are invariably merged as <H, C>

This, in Antisymmetry, proves the absence of directionality parameters, and that any variation of <H, C> is due movement.

External Merge

While internal merge is satisfied in Antisymmetry, cases the likes of a specifier being added to H through external merge are found to be problematic: in those instances, it can’t be said that H is not acting as a probe because that would not agree with the aforementioned (53) and (54). Kanye tries posing a solution similar to the one offered by Chomsky and Moro 'A head and a complement need to be ordered relative to one another only if neither moves', but he follows saying that it would make (55) irrelevant. Lastly, a final proposal by Holmberg, following Svenoniusstates that the relation between H and C has to mediated by movement, even in cases of external merge, thanks to a selection feature of the probe head that triggers either head movement or feature movement.

Specifiers Precede Probes/Heads

In the following section, Kayne explores internal merge in order to provide a better understanding of the movement properties of an antisymmetric syntax. First, the steps of internal merge (of the subcase of one phrase being internally merged to another, and not headmovement) are shown as follow:

56) [C … S …] → H [C … S …] → S H [C … S …] or H [C … S …] S

Kayne explains that taking Antisymmetry into account, the Faculty of Language should not allow H [C … S …] S, nor should it allow a choice between the two. Following Abels and Neeleman, distinction between internal merge and external merge should be carefully noted, as they bare differences in their behaviour: for internal merge, an axiom is proposed that states that movement is always leftwards, resulting into S-H-C order; however, for external merge, Abels and Neeleman allow specifiers to adjoin to the right or to the left. Given that these two proposals do not strengthen nor satisfy Antisymmetry, Kayne proposes that external merge is dependent on properties of H, while internal merge is dependent on properties of merge.

Unfamiliar Derivations

In this section, Kayne pursues the idea that S is merged not to <H, C> but the H itself. Kayne explains that insofar merge could produce two different outcomes if it allows S to merge with <H, C> (rather than the head alone):

57) <S, {H, C}> or <{H, C}, S>

He then proposes that if the merging of S (a phrase) to {H, C} (also a phrase) is made unavailable:

58) The merger of two phrases is unavailable

Instead, (pair-)merge involves only one head, and is of temporal precedence; the structure S H [C … S …] can be represented as the following:

59) <S, H> <H, C>

corresponding to the precedence relation:

60) S H C

However, it must be noted that while H does probe C, it is not the case of H probing S as well.

Immediate Precedence

Kayne introduces the term immediate precedence (i-precede(nce)): in <S, H> S i-precedes H, and in <H, C> H i-precedes C. He also uses the term p-merge as “ pair-merge with i-precedence”. Using these terms, he proposes the following:

61) H can be p-merged with at most two elements

However, it is noted that this point together with (58) doesn't allow coexistence with Chomsky’s statement “Without further stipulation, the number of specifiers is unlimited”. He then takes into account the following two statements:

62) If X i-precedes Z and Y i-precedes Z, then X=Y 63) If Z i-preceds X and Z i-preceds Y, then X=Y

If one were to replace X, Y, and Z with S, C, and H respectively, the following is a logical conclusion:

64) If H p-merges with S and also p-merges with C, S and C must be on opposite sides of H

If they weren’t on opposite sides, (63) would predict that S = C, when in fact it is the case that S ≠ C. Combined with (55) (which shows that Faculty of Language consistently imposes H-C order), Kayne proposes:

65) Faculty of Language consistently imposes S-H-C order

Together with (53) and (54) (which proved H-C order to be fixed based on probe-goal search), the orders imposed by Faculty of Language is therefore without directionality parameter.

Constituency

In what has been formulates so far, structure <S, H> <H, C> raises three main questions/puzzles:

#Both ‘S H’ and ‘H C’ look like a constituent
#S H C doesn’t look like a constituent 
#The relation between <S, H> <H, C> and trees (individually analyzed in the next section)

Tackling the first two puzzles, Kayne argues that the possible constituent status of ‘S H’ subjects it to movement (this also applies to ‘ H C’); Kayne argues that ‘H C’, and consequently ‘S H’, cannot move given that they are not maximal projections. This then poses the following two statements:

66) A probe can pick a head or a maximal projection of a head, but not an intermediate-level projection 67) The maximal projection of a head H is the maximal set of ordered pairs each of which immediately contains H

(66) blocks movement of ‘S H’ and ‘H C’. In turn, (67) would then allow ‘S H C’ to move, solving two of the three questions posed at the beginning of this sections.

Speculation on Trees

In this section, Kayne explores how antisymmetry behaves when integrated into derivational syntax. First, a possible restriction on derivational syntax is posed:

68) Every syntactic object in every derivational stage in a derivational syntax must be simply mappable to a tree

In relation to the above statement, <S,H><H,C> is not easily mappable and therefore not it is not a compatible structure in derivational syntax. Yet, Kayne argues that (68) is (paradoxically) incongruent with its further development, here following:

69) The correct derivational theory of FL must be simply mappable to a representational theory

(69), as described by Kayne, says that ‘Existence of a level of abstraction at which the difference between derivational and representational collapses’. In order to conform to both (68) and (69), the following structure is suggested:

70) < S, H, C>

This would lead to a representation using a ternary-branching tree, implying that syntax is n-ary branching with n having a single value, and that value being 3 (instead of 2). Furthermore, it also implies that binding of anaphors cannot be represented on (asymmetric) c-command trees; however, as suggested by Chomsky, a probe-goal framework of the likes here described makes c-commanding dispensable.

Further Remarks on p-merge

One question that has been left open is: could a specifier merged with one head subsequently be merged with a higher head? The following is a visual representation of the questioned structure:

71) <H2, S>, <S, H1>

Despite this representation respects immediate precedence, tertiary branch cannot be simply mapped, in disagreement with (68). A second possible representation is then put forward:

72) <H2, S>, <S, H1>, <H1, C>

Here as well, ternary branching does not suffice for compatibility with (68).

73) < H2, S, H1, C>

In (73), immediate precedence is also respected, but it would require four branches at the highest level, and three in the lower ones, going against the idea of n-ary branching with n being a fixed value. Kayne then questions if a theory that allows configuration the likes of <S,H><H,C> would also allow constructions (71) and (72). ‘The answer would be no’ Kayne states, because the two heads in (71) are the application of two probe-goal searches, while in <S,H><H,C> the two heads are a result of a single application of probe-goal. Yet, (71) is seen in different syntactic phenomena:

# ECM
# Escape Hatches 
# Stowell's contrast

74) Any questions about how he could have made such a mistake must be taken seriously *? Any questions about in what sense he could have made such a mistake must be taken seriously

Conclusive Remarks

At last, Kayne offers a summarized debrief on Antisymmetry and its application in regards to head-directionality. To the question ‘Why are there no directionality parameters’, Kayne states that the evidence provided by cross-linguistic gaps in symmetry is substantially enough to pose the absence of such parameters . To the question of Faculty of Language and its antisymmetric nature, three main points are offered: The first two points are (53) and (54), here repeated

75) Probe-goal search shares the directionality of parsing and of production 76) Probe-goal search proceeds from left to right

prohibit C-H and allow H-C only. The last point, (58) (repeated here below)

77) The merger of two phrases is unavailable

together with the immediate precedence imposed by Merge, prohibits H-C-S and allow S-H-C only. Lastly, Kayne notes that in following this derivational antisymmetry, cases of plausible syntactic analyses the likes of right-adjunction, right-hand specifiers, and left-hand specifiers are (mistakenly) prohibited. In doing so, Antisymmetry is shown to spread in a large area of syntax, and compositional semantics, used by Kayne as an example, would be one of those affected given its close tracking of syntax.

This section aims to provide a detailed annotated bibliography of works that focus on Head Parameters. The research component of this page is mainly aiming at creating a larger database for linguistic topics relating to syntax and its aspects.

Head Parameter Bibliography

1970s

• Coates, J. (1971) Denominal adjectives: A study in syntactic relationships between modifier and head

The main focus is on understanding the different types of adjectives and nouns and comparing the location of the semantic stress in compound words to see which part of the word is the head. This article extends the understand of the wikipedia article beyond just larger syntactic trees and looks into phenomena that may have started out as lexical and functional words but have been combined into a single world in common orthography. This goes further to challenge people to think beyond the orthography to what headedness actually means syntactically and semantically. The author’s focus on English examples limits his perspective to attempting to establish rules without actually seeing if they are universal or otherwise. The article is helpful and interesting, but the diagrams are unclear and could use more explanation and markings to decode what the tables are actually comparing.

• Hsieh, H. (1977) Noun-modifier order as a consequence of VSO order

This article aims to investigate the correlation between the head direction in NPs and the basic word order cross-linguistically. The author argues that the head-initial structure in NPs arises from verb-initial arrangement in basic word orders in sentences instead of the verb-object order in VPs. In order to prove this claim, the author conducted a wide range of survey in various language families or subfamilies. With comprehensive cross-linguistic evidences, this article invalidates previous hypothesis about how verb-object sequence results in head-initial NPs. From a typological linguistics perspective, the author provides a compelling characterization of the correlation between head direction and the basic word order in a variety of languages across the world. His argument strengthens the foundation for comparative syntax. His findings expand the horizon for future head directional studies. Although this study was conducted in 1970s, to the readers, the rigorous logic, the large scale of investigation, and the straightforward approaches all make this article very impressive and convincing.

1980s

• Flynn, S., & Espinal, I. (1985) Head-initial/head-final parameter in adult Chinese L2 acquisition of English

They investigated the relationship between the head parameter and second language acquisition. They argued that the head parameter is reset during second language acquisition and that the head parameter is differentiated by the parameter that governs word order. This paper will support that the head parameter is associated with language acquisition. It will also demonstrate a perspective that treats the head parameter as separate from word order. This paper is written from a perspective that believes in Universal Grammar which is why the head parameter is used to explain language acquisition. The paper also supports the parameter setting model for second language acquisition created by Flynn. There may be some bias in how the results are interpreted such that they fit the model. I feel that this paper uses logical and strong arguments to defend their model. The experiment was also well designed and the comparison to other languages greatly supported their arguments.

• Rijikhoff, J. (1986) Word order universals revisited: the principle of Head Proximity

The author looks at Principle of Head-Proximity as the main drive behind the constituent ordering in syntax. It proves that PHP and its Principles of Constituent Ordering can be applied to other phenomena that were previously treated separately. It also leads to a reduction of the Principles of Constituent Ordering. This article takes close account of the head parameter and the heads that take part in the Principle of Head-Proximity, and can hence shed new light on the topic. Moreover, it also shed light on the evolution of syntactic analysis. The author uses peer-reviewed data and theories, and writes to an audience of scholars, and hence is point of view is strictly academic. I personally liked this article because of its style: the reader is carried through the different steps and easily grasps concepts proposed, reaching the article’s purpose.

1990s

• Hoeksema, J. (1992) The head parameter in morphology and syntax

This paper discusses issues that arise when parameter settings are used to explain word-order variation and the acquisition of word order. He argues that word order and the head parameter are the same and that there may be more than one word order in a single language. Also, the acquisition device needs to separate the data and learn the different orders. This also demonstrates an opposing view of the head parameter and word order variation. It also suggests that not all languages are consistently head final or initial and that the head parameter complicates language acquisition. This is written from a perspective that insists that the word order and head parameter are the same. One shortcoming of this paper is that the evidence for his arguments are not strong. I feel that this paper is a simple introduction to the issues of head parameter but it creates more questions than answers.

• Fukui, N. (1993) Parameters and optionality

In this article, Fukui argues that in a head-initial language such as English, leftward movement of an object requires an obligatory driving force (topicalization/wh-movement) because it goes against the parameter value CPR = X0 > ymax, while rightward movement maintains it and thus can be optional. However, in head-final Japanese, the opposite is found (with CPR = Ymax > X0). Further, Japanese does not contain an obligatory driving force which would develop rightward movement over a head, thus Japanese is very strictly head-final. I think this article will help with determining the importance of having a head and whether its placement is initial or final, through the application of the movement experiment Fukui performs and the results derived. This article is written from the perspective of a native Japanese linguist with experience both the English and Japanese language at high post-secondary level (near-fluency, if not); however, I cannot find if Fukui has ample background in Chinese language to support the given data. Seems very well thought-out and thorough; however, the language used is pretty technical, lending to a more intermediate-level read. I like how Fukui applies the theory to another language outside the comparative Japanese and English. I would like to see other language families (with respectively varying head parameters) analyzed using this theory to see it’s results when Universally applied.

2000s

• O'Grady, W., & Lee, M., & Choo, M., (2001) The Acquisition of Relative Clauses by Heritage and Non-Heritage Learners of Korean as a Second Language: A Comparative Study

The goal of the paper is to investigate the ability of recognize heads and their relative clause structures in Korean and to compare this ability between heritage and non-heritage learners. Using data gathered through a comprehension experiment, the author guides the readers through syntactic heads, and the discerned meanings; it also shows how English head-initial relative clauses is easier to learn than Korean head-final relative clauses. Providing information on the importance of the head parameter in Korean syntax, this paper also shows how heritage learners don’t have any apparent advantage over non-heritage learners (they usually do in areas of vocabulary, pronunciation, comprehension). The detailed analysis of data as well as a rich use of (referenced) previous research is contrasted by the limited use of examples (most likely due the narrow focus of this paper)

• Takita, K. (2009) If Chinese Is Head-Initial, Japanese Cannot Be

The author approaches the word order in Japanese relative to the one in Mandarin Chinese after many languages (Mandarin Chinese as well) were found to be underlyingly head-initial. The author proves that Japanese is genuinely head-final and that the Universal Grammar is equipped with a directionality parameter admitting both head-final and head-initial languages. This is in turn relevant to our topic, given that it helps us with adding information on Head Parameter universally. Moreover, the more cross-linguistic references and data present, the more reliable our project grows. The author seems to be motivated by showing that Universal Grammar has a directionality parameter, and her approach is very objective, taking into account previous research and contemporary views. However, it seems that this study was written for academic-use mostly, as it references previous approaches and theories built on syntax. She offers enough data to prove her claim, yet the glossing and translations can be overwhelming at times. Conclusively, her study straightforwardly approaches her prediction concluding that Head Parameter is present in the Universal Grammar; I personally find this a great approach as it states both goals and thinking process.

2010-14

• Liu, H. (2010) Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks

The main goals of this article are to introduce a method for word-order typology based on dependency treebanks, and to demonstrate how this method could improve traditional language typology studies. Previous word-order typological studies usually classify languages into a limited number of discrete types based on the linear order and binary relation of grammatical elements. The author in this article, however, proposes a statistical and corpus-based approach that is proved can provide more complete and fine-grained typological analysis about head directional distribution. The results imply that languages can be typologized along a continuum with head-initial and head-final as the two ends. Although several considerable factors might slightly influence the results, such as the annotation scheme, the genre variety in the selection of some samples, overall, this study provides a novel and advanced approach for modern language typology in characterizing head directional parameters cross-linguistically.

• Ledegeway, A. (2012) From latin to romance: configurationality, functional categories and Head Marking

Ledgeway explores some of the language shifts between Latin and Romance languages. Specifically, he argues against the idea that most of the structural differences resulted from a shift from a synthetic language to an analytic one. Rather, the change was a combination of shifting to a more analytic language and developing more internal structure. This article helps show how X-bar theory relates different languages to each other and how syntactic structure is tied to language change. It also explains how some languages can appears to be un-directional, when really the language just allows more than one location for the head. Written with a focus on historical linguistics, the article shows the flexibility of languages and how relatively new theories contribute understanding to “dead” languages as well as living ones. Overall, the well-written structure contributes to the understanding of the reader and the tree-diagrams are really helpful when trying to understand the linguistic significance of hierarchical vs. linear linguistic structure. It would be interesting to see how other synthetic languages do or do not require the head parameter.

Ideophones

Attempt at Semantic Fields

Liquids – (Visual/Tactile)

Filling small container with liquid
Beginning to warm up (liquid)
Beginning to boil
Filling container with any kind of liquid
Beginning to steam (liquid being boiled)
Being completely full of liquid (large container)

Spraying – Visual

Spraying quickly (as water-pump)
Drizzling
Spraying (continuously)

Taking space up – Visual/Movement

Spreading out and filling an area
Spreading out over an area (eg. cattle)
Going, coming, sprouting (many together)
Being wide
Being extended
Being very many (moving people or animals)
Being many (moving people or animals)

Posture – Visual/Movement

Bending forward, hands resting on knees

Exiting – Movement

Opening by itself (what has been compressed)			
Coming out (stuffed contents from a container)
Releasing air

Movement/Visual

Being deflated slowly

Visual/Movement/State

Slowly losing consciousness (dying)

State

Revealing (a secret)

Quantity – Visual

Being very many (moving people or animals)
Being many (moving people or animals)

Velocity – Movement

Taking long strides (expressing anger)
Accelerating
Punching someone in the face

Being at a loss – State

Being at a loss 

Emotional – State

Being happy
Being relaxed, happy
Being happy, contented
Rejoicing intensely

Annotated Bibliography

1900 - 1930

Sapir, E. E. (1929) A study in phonetic Symbolism. Journal Of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 225-239 DOI: 10.1037/h0070931 http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=85b4807e-2d4a-4cde-920d-19906f334ff4%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4206

Sapir’s experiment records the percentage of connoting the meaning “large” to nonce words words containing the vowel [a] opposed to nonce words containing other vowels (in minimal pairs such as: [mal] vs. [mil]) by English speakers, showing that the interpretation of “expressive” symbols is unconsciously based on acoustic and kinesthetic factors. This paper is very well constructed, expanding on the topic of perceptual basis for ideophones by stating, “language factors need not be invoked to explain these symbolisms.” Given the year in which it was written (1929), Sapir’s hypothesis is adventurous, given the apparent lack of precedent work on the topic, and opens a window on what ideophones were perceived as by the linguistic society of the time. Despite lack of cross-linguistic data, the evidence of a perceptual understanding of ideophones is very well presented.

1930 - 1960

Newman, S. S. (1933) Further Experiments in Phonetic Symbolism. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 53-75 DOI: 10.2307/1414186 http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/1414186

Newman’s paper aims to study the patterning of phonetic symbolism on a non-linguistic plane. After testing different vowels/consonants/consonant clusters minimal pairs in nonce words and the meaning to them connoted (magnitude- and darkness-symbolism) by speakers of three different age groups, he proposes 5 findings: phonetic elements are patterned on a non-linguistic symbolic scale; phonetic symbolism is fundamentally objective; different phonetic patterns are formed by different symbolisms; linguistic association plays no part in symbolism adjudication; age plays no part in symbolism adjudication. This paper is valuable for the perception sub-area because it explains how adjudication is of mechanical nature, and how its basis of perception could be the following: kinesthetic, acoustic and possibly visual. This paper seems to follow the work of Sapir (1929) and is heavily influenced in the approach to the topic, just with the addition of statistical treatment. With this paper, Newman makes a great study-case of symbolism adjudication and further expands the knowledge on ideophones.

Bentley, M. & Varon, E. J. (1933) An Accessory Study of “Phonetic Symbolism”. The American Journal of Psychology Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 76-86 DOI: 10.2307/1414186 http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/1414186

Following the steps of Sapir and Newman, this paper presents an experiment that looked at symbolism adjudication: through minimal pairs of nonce words, subjects were asked to either give individual meanings to the words or to plot them on a (given) gradual scale of different attributes (bright-dark, small-big, etc.). This paper argues that spatial factors (kinesthetic) might be the most influential factor for phonetic symbolism. This paper is useful to the perceptual topic because it looks at how kinesthetic, physiological and spatial factors do play a role in the understanding of sound symbolism. The authors follow a path that has been analyzed recently at the time, and hence provides a fresh look onto the topic, creating an environment in which information and methodology are clearly explained. Furthermore, the variety of control experiments provided makes for a more accurate conclusion.

1960 - 1990

Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1978) On The Universal Character Of Phonetic Symbolism With Special Reference To Vowels. Studia Linguistica, 32: 80–90 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.1978.tb00329.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1978.tb00329.x/asset/j.1467-9582.1978.tb00329.x.pdf?v=1&t=i0sqjjki&s=ee08bbd8d8f1ac21c71861aeb81b19a0c5d1fc66

In this paper, Fischer-Jørgensen investigates universalities regarding the expressive vocabulary of languages (and their symbolisms). Here the author focuses on data of previously studied languages and their expressive lexicon (and not onomatopoeic words) and their cross-linguistic generalizations. In his article, Fischer-Jørgensen takes time to rundown what is generally believed to be the basis of perception for sound symbolism and ideophones; for example, he argues that articulatory factors (registered through kinaesthetic and visual processes) might not play as important of a role as auditory factors do. He also provides views of “expressive words” lexicon, a lexicon in which the way sounds and their symbolism are paired is believed to be synesthetic or at a deeper psychological/physiological level. This article seems more of an umbrella-like-article, as it tries to fit different items underneath the same generalizing blanket in an attempt at understanding universalities of ideophones and sound symbolism. It also provides concrete examples of real languages and their symbolisms, with their differences and (remarkable) similarities.

1990 - 2010

Childs, G. Tucker (2001). Research on ideophones, whither hence? the need for a social theory of ideophones. Ideophones, ed. by F. K. Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz, 63–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. OCLC: 70754455 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/reader.action?docID=10022357

The purpose of this paper is to denote the social quality of ideophones, and cross-linguistic differences are in fact due the diverse communities and societies of the world. With primary regard to the study of African ideophones, this paper focuses on the social factors of ideophones. Childs presents an interesting point: ideophones vary in their “expressive nature” depending on the community using the language (Japanese ideophones are psychological while African ideophones are perceptual): differences in cognitive processing have been recorded across communities, and this could play a bigger factor than previously thought on the nature and perception of ideophones; a question for future research. Although the focus is on African languages for most of the length, the evidence supporting the claims is clear and well presented.

Osaka, N., & Osaka, M. (2005). Striatal reward areas activated by implicit laughter induced by mimic words in humans: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroreport, 16(15), 1621-1624. ISSN: 0959-4965 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/20513757?accountid=14656

In this research, the neurobiological reward components of laughter induced by words were investigated. Subjects were exposed to onomatopoeias of laughter (and nonce-words for control) and data was recorded on whether the ventromedial prefrontal cortex would activate at hearing these words. The results of these were that implied laughter not only activates the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, but it interconnects to the dorsal ACC/SMA, probably due the dopaminergic reward associated. This adds to the topic of perception of ideophones, as these expressive words are not registered the way prosaic words are, and in fact activates different areas of the brain, areas pertinent to their meaning. This research article is heavy on neurobiological content and might be hard to fully appreciate without knowledge of some key concepts, yet its discussion is very well expressed and concise.

2010 - 2014

Dingemanse, M. (2012) “Advances in the Cross-Linguistic Study of Ideophones”. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/10: 654–672, 10.1002/lnc3.361 DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.361 http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=29915669-2384-4f91-98c9-a733f252820a%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=101

In this paper, Dingemanse explores the different facets of ideophones that have been discovered so far, and addresses that future research will be needed to fully understand how ideophones behave. He runs the reader through the literature that has covered ideophones and their findings. This paper is important for this section on how ideophones are mapped by language speakers; these three types of iconicity are: imagic iconicity (the sounds of the words mimic sounds of the world); gestalt iconicity, in which word structure depicts the event structure; and relative iconicity, in which related forms map onto related meanings. This furthers expands on the vocal images of ideophones, a richly cross-modal depiction of sensory images. The paper is very complete, evaluating many of the points emerging on ideophones from the literature of this past century, and concisely summarizes them.

Katerina Kantartzis, Mutsumi Imai, Sotaro Kita (2011) Japanese Sound-Symbolism Facilitates Word Learning in English-Speaking Children. Cognitive Science, Volume 35, Issue 3, pages 575–586 DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01169.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01169.x/abstract

This paper aims at exploring whether infants have a better control and understanding of the universals of ideophones given their mental plasticity. Further, it discovers that English infants had a substantial control over Japanese ideophones, suggesting that cognitive plasticity at that age permits free understanding of the universals of ideophones. This paper is interesting for this topic not because of what it has presented in its paper, but because of the suggestion that cognitive understanding and development could be intertwined with language evolution of ideophones (a factor that has played much in language evolution per se). This paper explains the methods used in gathering data and what the results indicate in a manner that is concise and easily understood.

Notes

Works cited

• Comrie, Bernard (2008). "Pronominal relative clauses in verb-object languages" (PDF). Language and Linguistics. 9 (4): 723–733. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
• Courtney, Ellen H. (2011). "Learning to produce Quechua relative clauses". Acquisition of Relative Clauses : Processing, typology and function. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 141–172. ISBN 9789027283405. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
• Kayne, Richard S. (2011). "Why Are There No Directionality Parameters?". Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (PDF). Somerville: Cascadilla Press. pp. 1–23. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
• Nolda, Andreas (2004). Topics Detached to the Left: On ‘Left Dislocation’, ‘Hanging Topic’, and Related Constructions in German (PDF). Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics. pp. 423–448. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
• Ozeki, Hiromi (2011). "The acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese". Acquisition of Relative Clauses : Processing, typology and function. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 173–196. ISBN 9789027283405. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
• Coates, J. (1971). Denominal adjectives: A study in syntactic relationships between modifier and head. Lingua, 27, 160-169.
• Flynn, S., & Espinal, I. (1985). Head-initial/head-final parameter in adult Chinese L2 acquisition of English. Second Language Research, 1(2), 93-117. [1]
• Fukui, N. (1993). Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 399-420. [2]
• Hoeksema, J. (1992). The head parameter in morphology and syntax. Language and cognition, 2, 119-32. [3]
• Hsieh, H. (1977). Noun-modifier order as a consequence of VSO order. Lingua, 42(2-3), 91-109. [4]
• Ledegeway, A. (2012). From latin to romance: configurationality, functional categories and Head Marking. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 422-442.
• Liu, H. (2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua,120(6), 1567-1578. [5]
• O'Grady, W., & Lee, M., & Choo, M., (2001). “The Acquisition of Relative Clauses by Heritage and Non-Heritage Learners of Korean as a Second Language: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Korean Language Education 12 , pp. 283-94. [6]

• Rijikhoff, J. (1986), “Word order universals revisited: the principle of Head Proximity.” Belgian Journal Of Linguistics. pp. 95-125. [7]

• Takita, K. (2009). If Chinese Is Head-Initial, Japanese Cannot Be. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb), pp. 41-61. [8]