Syntactic parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to propose a theory which accommodates both historical facts and acquisition data in terms of grammar change by establishing a correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny in language development. Based on strong syntactic parallels between early child English and earlier English, it will be argued that the same mechanism of functional category maturation is at work in both these domains. Languages typically start as lexical-thematic, without any functional categories and the emergence of a new functional category is the characteristic mark of a transition from one stage to the next both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. Diachronically, this process is effected by the grammaticalization as syntactic functional categories of previously existing morpho-semantic features. I propose that language variation is due to differences in the degree to which functional features are codified as grammatical categories, i.e. whether they are upgraded to functional categories which have their own projection and if so, which features are upgraded. Hence, my claim implies that grammaticalization should be viewed as functional category maturation, that is, as involving the emergence of functional categories heading their own projections. This view of grammaticalization can deal with most of the questions raised recently by Fischer et al. (Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemanade, Willem Koopman, Wim van der Warff, 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). I further propose a more comprehensive framework to accommodate both historical facts and acquisition data. This framework involves the reallocation of duties, for example, from morphology to syntax, or from pragmatics to syntax. The diachronic development of language is then to be viewed as a change in some domain in the trading relations between morphology, pragmatics, and syntax. This is the conceptual basis of category maturation. The difference between first language acquisition and diachronic change resides in the possible difference in the direction of the reallocation. In principle, any reallocation is possible, e.g. from syntax to morphology, or syntax to pragmatics. However, I suggest that there is a unidirectionality in the reallocation of duties, such that every reallocation targets syntax.