LINGUIST List 5.1408

Wed 07 Dec 1994

Disc: Comparative method in syntax

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. David Michaels, Comparative Reconstruction in Syntax
2. , Re: 5.1393 Using the comparative method in syntax

Comparative reconstruction in phonology "reconstructs" underlying or
lexical representations. In the minimalist program in syntax, the
syntax consists of an array of lexical items and the operation Move Feature.
It seems that the problem for comparative reconstruction in syntax is
reduced to reconstruction of the lexical representation of words/morphemes
(since the single operation has no doubt stayed the same) and the lexical
parameters.

Message 2: Re: 5.1393 Using the comparative method in syntax

Fritz is right about the lack of anything resembling sound
correspondences in syntax (at least so far as is known at present),
but note that regular sound changes and resulting regular sound correspondences
have no analogues in any of the sciences that deal with prehistory, e.g.,
in evolutionary biology, yet it is perfectly possible for such
sciences to reconstruct hypothetical ancestral stages.

One important tool for figuring out prehistoric syntax that is
often mentioned, by the way, is careful anlysis of bits of syntax
that get frozen in the morphology, e.g., a word like _forget-me-not_
or _ne'er-do-well_.

Finally, Bloomfield did propose syntactic analogues of phonemes
and morphemes (taxemes and constructions, respectively), and I
have made some small headway on identifying something analogous
to phonetics (which I call tactics) (on both points, see my
brief paper "Ever since Bloomfield" in the proceedings of the
last Internatl Congress of Linguists, the one in Quebec City).