{"title":"Evolutionary Syntax , by Ljiljana Progovac","authors":"R. Truswell","doi":"10.1093/JOLE/LZW008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evolutionary syntax , by Ljiljana Progovac, OUP (2015) 280 pp, £24.99.\n\nIn this monograph, Progovac argues for an incremental evolution of cognitive capacities underpinning syntactic structure, with Conjoin (a binary, non-recursive operation immune to movement and embedding) anteceding recursive Merge. This distinction plays out over four stages, described in Chapters 1–4, with Merge only visible in stage 4. \n\n1. Single words;\n\n2. Two-word combinations, for example, Case closed ;\n\n3. ‘Proto-coordination’, where linkers like English as or Mandarin de mark binary predicate–argument relations;\n\n4. Specific functional categories, permitting recursive syntactic structures.\n\nProgovac’s primary evidence comes from syntactic analysis of constructions, such as those above, identified as linguistic fossils (Jackendoff 1999). However, most chapters contain sections on ‘corroborating evidence’, summarizing findings from acquisition, imaging studies, and other related fields, although the interpretation of such evidence is often inconclusive (Boeckx 2016).\n\nThere are several innovations in the details. For example, the stage 2 grammar, which creates binary verb–noun (VN) combinations, is claimed to have no subject–object distinction (resulting in ‘absolutive’ grammar in Progovac’s terms). This is reflected in English and Serbian VN compounds, where a rattlesnake is a snake that rattles, while rotgut is alcohol that rots guts. Similar indeterminacy is demonstrated in Tongan and Riau Indonesian. A second novel claim is that the capacity for binary protosyntactic combination within a ‘clause’ (stage 2) is linked to binary combination of clauses (stage 2a), giving a strictly finite device which can mimic subordination to a limited extent. Likewise, linkers at stage 3 may appear between predicate and argument, or between clauses.\n\nMany of these novel accounts of individual constructions are genuinely insightful and thought-provoking. Progovac argues that constructions which look quirky and cussed from the perspective of modern syntactic theory may be elegantly analysed within the terms of less expressive models of syntax. As … rob.truswell{at}ed.ac.uk","PeriodicalId":37118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JOLE/LZW008","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JOLE/LZW008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evolutionary syntax , by Ljiljana Progovac, OUP (2015) 280 pp, £24.99.
In this monograph, Progovac argues for an incremental evolution of cognitive capacities underpinning syntactic structure, with Conjoin (a binary, non-recursive operation immune to movement and embedding) anteceding recursive Merge. This distinction plays out over four stages, described in Chapters 1–4, with Merge only visible in stage 4.
1. Single words;
2. Two-word combinations, for example, Case closed ;
3. ‘Proto-coordination’, where linkers like English as or Mandarin de mark binary predicate–argument relations;
4. Specific functional categories, permitting recursive syntactic structures.
Progovac’s primary evidence comes from syntactic analysis of constructions, such as those above, identified as linguistic fossils (Jackendoff 1999). However, most chapters contain sections on ‘corroborating evidence’, summarizing findings from acquisition, imaging studies, and other related fields, although the interpretation of such evidence is often inconclusive (Boeckx 2016).
There are several innovations in the details. For example, the stage 2 grammar, which creates binary verb–noun (VN) combinations, is claimed to have no subject–object distinction (resulting in ‘absolutive’ grammar in Progovac’s terms). This is reflected in English and Serbian VN compounds, where a rattlesnake is a snake that rattles, while rotgut is alcohol that rots guts. Similar indeterminacy is demonstrated in Tongan and Riau Indonesian. A second novel claim is that the capacity for binary protosyntactic combination within a ‘clause’ (stage 2) is linked to binary combination of clauses (stage 2a), giving a strictly finite device which can mimic subordination to a limited extent. Likewise, linkers at stage 3 may appear between predicate and argument, or between clauses.
Many of these novel accounts of individual constructions are genuinely insightful and thought-provoking. Progovac argues that constructions which look quirky and cussed from the perspective of modern syntactic theory may be elegantly analysed within the terms of less expressive models of syntax. As … rob.truswell{at}ed.ac.uk