Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: case systems [was Viko Notes]

From:Marcus Smith <smithma@...>
Date:Thursday, June 27, 2002, 21:35
I agree with Sobin that the case facts in coordinate structures fall
outside the scope of Universal Grammar, but I found his use of the term
"grammatical virus" quite unfortunate. The analogy with a virus disrupting
the normal workings of grammar is very misleading, I think. These quirks
don't show up to modify "correct" grammar, but exist where the grammar is
not clear how things should be: either the point in question is undefined,
or there are multiple potentially correct solutions.

Marcus

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Doug Dee wrote:

> People interested in this subject might like to find the Spring 1997 issue > (vol 28 #2) of _Linguistic Inquiry_, in which Nicholas Sobin claims that the > prescribed construction "Mary and I left early" (as opposed to the common > "Mary and me . . .") is actually contrary to universal grammar and not part > of anyone's natural linguistic competence. The same claim is made about > several other constructions of "prestige English." The article is entitled > "Agreement, Default Rules, and Grammatical Viruses". > > Doug > > In a message dated 6/26/2002 8:21:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > a-rosta@ALPHAPHE.COM writes: > > > > Marcus Smith > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Thomas R. Wier wrote: > > > > > > > (Note that your first example is almost always an instance > > > > of hypercorrection, in that that speaker usually doesn't also say > > *"give > > > > it to Jim and he" or "give it to Jim and they". > > > > > > This is the standard interpretation, but is probably wrong. As far back > > as > > > can be traced by written records, Indo-European languages have been > > > putting non-initial conjuncts in the nominative case (not consistently, > > > but as an option). > > > > The evidence strongly suggests that nonsubjective "and I" did indeed > > originate as a hypercorrection (though it is no longer hypercorrective), > > and hence that the cross-linguistic parallels you cite serve only to > > demonstrate the general point that some sorts of morphosyntactic > > marking are weakened by coordination. That is, coordination has a > > predispositive effect on case mismatches, but the actual aetiology of > > this particular change is hypercorrection. > > > > The evidence is this: > > (1) A prescriptive rule ordaining that the first person singular > > pronoun be ordered last in coordination, misinterpreted as a rule > > requiring "I" rather than "me". > > (2) A prescriptive rule stigmatizing conjunct "me" as subject of > > a finite clause, and furthermore prescribing "I" as subject of > > a nonfinite clause (contrary to the general trend of usage). > > (3) The distribution of nonsubjective "and I" across registers, > > text-types and sociolects: although it is rapidly spreading, I > > believe that a large and diverse enough corpus would show it > > starts out as formal rather than informal, spoken rather than > > written, and originating in a particular stratum of the middle > > class that is particularly susceptible to prescriptively driven > > hypercorrection. > > > > > It is also untrue that these mismatches only occur with "I", though this > > > is also what you frequently read or hear. Shakespeare used lines like > > > "between my good man and he" (Merry Wives). This use of "I" is more > > common > > > than the others, but it is not unique. > > > > I suspect that those older examples are part of a different > > phenomenon, where again the case mismatch is conditioned by > > the coordination, but the actual cause is not hypercorrective > > but semantic. > > > > As for contemporary English, if "and he/she/they/we" is occurring, > > I think the stats would show that it is due to generalization of > > the already established "and I" pattern. > > > > --And. > > > >