The Final-over-Final Constraint and predictions for diachronic change

Abstract

Following Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts (2007, 2008), we examine the predictions of the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) for grammatical change and borrowing. As an invariant syntactic principle (cf. Chomsky 1981 and following) FOFC rules out the synchronic possibility of a head-final phrase dominating a categorially alike head-initial phrase. This leads to the diachronic prediction that certain changes should be impossible, regardless of whether contact is involved or not. For example, change from head-final to headinitial order must proceed top-down, whereas change from head-initial to head-final order must proceed bottom-up. Case studies from the history of English, Afrikaans and French seem to support the first of these predictions. Furthermore, it is shown that the presence of an initial head blocks the borrowing of a higher final head, avoiding a FOFC-violation. Evidence for this comes from the position of polarity question heads and complementisers in South Asian languages.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.