Uniformity and diversity

Abstract

This essay discusses language uniformity and diversity in the light of recent developments of the minimalist program (Hauser et al. 2002;Chomsky 2008;Berwick & Chomsky 2011, and much related work). It pursues two leading ideas. First, Universal Grammar (UG) is maximally minimal: hence early internal language (I-language) is largely uniform across individuals, language variation being mainly or entirely confined to externalization. Second, the mapping from I-language to external language (E-language) is non-isomorphic (the Nonisomorphy Generalization), morphological processes such as agreement and case marking being E-language phenomena, taking place in the externalization component. The first line of reasoning converges with many of Chomsky's recent ideas, the second one is more divergent.

Case variation: Viruses and star wars

“…In a language where it has taken place, active Acc assignment in the v-system is based on the structure in (11), whereas the corresponding unaccusative and passive structures yield Nom, as sketched in (12); the arrows connecting v*-V and NP 1 indicate a matching relation that gets externalization process (suggesting that the PF derivation is NOT subject to the same locality and directional constraints as the syntactic derivation). In passing, it should be noted that PF case percolation does not bear on the (syntactic) Movement Theory of Control (MTC), contrary to common assumptions (see Sigurðsson 2008Sigurðsson , 2011c;…”

“…Notice that I am not claiming that these datives are in any kind of a free variation relation to the more central n-system genitive. 31 As pointed out to me by Jim Wood, passive Acc-to-Nom conversion applies to Appl accusatives, indicating that general 'concept material') rather than pre-stored in UG (Sigurðsson 2011b(Sigurðsson , 2011c. That is, the statements in question are third-factor externalization generalizations and not UG parameters in the traditional Principles and Parameters sense.…”

“…It entails, instead, that language variation largely follows from interaction of the 3rd factor with the 1st factor of the genetic endowment and the 2nd factor of experience (cf. Berwick & Chomsky 2011)-it cannot plausibly follow from Universal Grammar as such if it is indeed universal and innate, hence invariable, nor can it be fully explained by the 2nd factor (or else variation could not have arisen in the first place; see the discussion in Sigurðsson 2004Sigurðsson , 2011bSigurðsson , 2011c. If we had complete knowledge and understanding of the 3rd factor and its interaction with the 1st and the 2nd factors, we would presumably be able to predict much of the attested variation of the languages of the world, including visible and tactile sign languages.…”

“…The following journey is part of a much longer voyage (Sigurðsson 2004(Sigurðsson , 2006a(Sigurðsson , 2006b(Sigurðsson , 2011b(Sigurðsson , 2011c(Sigurðsson , 2012, aiming at showing that internal syntax is even smaller or narrower and that the externalization component of language is thus much broader and richer ('more syntactic') than commonly assumed in generative approaches. As it turns out, however, case predicates).…”

“…That is, the statements in question are third-factor externalization generalizations and not UG parameters in the traditional Principles and Parameters sense. In view of the fact that UG parametric approaches cannot be upheld (Berwick & Chomsky 2011, Boeckx 2011, Sigurðsson 2004, 2011b, 2011c, 2012, it is interesting, even uplifting, that language variation, nevertheless, can be systematically analyzed. It raises some hope that the incredibly complex externalization component of language can be successfully studied.…”