Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:27:47.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Parametric Variation

from Part Four - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2022

Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martin Maiden
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Research into comparative syntax over the last four decades has revealed that, despite some quite considerable superficial differences, syntactic variation among different languages and varieties is not random, but is ultimately constrained by a small and finite set of principles and parameters, the number and nature of which can be successfully teased apart especially through the careful study of closely related languages and varieties where, all other things being equal, a particular parametric choice can be readily isolated. It is for this reason that investigations of parametric variation in the area of syntax have so often drawn on Romance data since empirical investigations of Romance morphosyntax, especially of non-standard varieties and dialects in more recent times, have uncovered a wealth of small-scale microvariation. Drawing on such examples as the variation found in subject clitic systems, auxiliary selection (variously driven by transitivity, mood, tense, and grammatical person), active participle agreement, the extent and distribution of verb movement, sentential negation, and C(omplementizer)-systems (e.g., dual/triple complementizer systems; V2; availability of V-to-C movement and focus fronting), this chapter provides a critical overview of the some of the principal dimensions of morphosyntactic parametric variation with the aim of identifying the nature of the choices involved and, in particular, the differences between macro-, meso-, micro-, and nanoparameters and how these are formally organized within the grammar, the interaction between these parameters both in diachrony and synchrony, and what the formal limits of such parametric variation are.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, M. (2008b). ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 351–74.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. (2005). ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’. In Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-Ll., Picallo, C., and Roca, F. (eds), Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–74.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2015). ‘Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 60: 105–27.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2019). ‘Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection’. In Cennamo, M. and Fabrizio, C. (eds), Historical Linguistics 2015. Selected Papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 343–84.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (1998). Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 vols). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2016a). ‘Negation’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 833–46.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. and Tortora, C. (2016). ‘Subject clitics: Syntax’. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 772–85.Google Scholar
Schifano, N. (2018). Verb Movement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×