Professional Documents
Culture Documents
language universals have been exaggerated and often disappear on closer examination;
whatever generalizations are found are often due to historical accidents, e.g. inheritance
from a common ancestor, macro-areal contact effects
Baltin (2004: 551): "I have never seen convincing evidence for macroparameters."
mnogo ljudej:
saw
saw
PossN & VO
saw the fathers
house
NPoss & VO
saw house the fathers
(vi) If a language has overt genitive marking for inalienable nouns (kinship terms, body-part
terms), then it also has overt genitive marking for other nouns (Nichols 1988). (scale-based
coding universal)
Jeli (Mande, Trbs 1998:167-169)
a. Soma ra monbilo
Soma
of
car
'Soma's car'
b. Soma bulo-ni
Soma
(*Soma monbilo)
Russian
a. -
arm-PL
b. -
but no language has genitive-marking only with arms, not with car
explanation (Haspelmath 2012++):
inalienable nouns are more frequently possessed, hence the possessive relation is more
predictable with them
speakers unconsciously tend to choose the shorter constructions where these are less
necessary
in this way, over time, languages tend to get a Jeli-type system or a Russian-type system
Comparison without analysis
Comparative concepts:
precede/follow
object, verb
= patient, action-word
= owner/whole/ego, thing/body-part/relative
genitive marking
Ease has both a cognitive and an articulatory component, as well as a time component
(life is short).
Speakers adjust their speech in accordance with hearers needs this is not a cognitive
factor, but a communicative factor (speakers want communicative success).
In addition, diachrony is crucial in this approach, because efficient patterns arise over
time in a complex process of diachronic change, which is again primarily explained by social
principles, not by cognitive principles.
To fully appreciate the role of linguistic diversity, one needs to consider multiple diverse
languages but 90% of linguists only work on one language, which facilitates the spread of
views that are incompatible with what is known about linguistic diversity
but this problem is not specific to language...
References
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.
Baltin, Mark. 2004. Remarks on the relation between language typology and Universal Grammar:
Commentary on Newmeyer. Studies in Language 28.3: 549-553.
Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko. 2012. Typological evidence
against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. Submitted.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. What Principles and Parameters Got Wrong. Ms., ICREA/Universitat
Autnoma de Barcelona.
Bossong, G. 1985. Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tbingen: Narr.
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dunn, Michael, Simon J Greenhill, Stephen C Levinson & Russell D Gray. 2011. Evolved structure
of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature.
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity
and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(05). 429448.
Geniuien, Emma. 1987. The typology of reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of
meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73113.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. (Arbeitspapiere Des
Instituts Fr Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Nr. 4). Cologne: Universitt zu Kln.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in
Language 28. 554579.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In
Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 75107. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2012++. A form-frequency correspondence explanation of some alienability
contrasts. In prep.
Hawkins, J. A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21(2). 223261.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maddieson, Ian. 2005. Front rounded vowels. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S Dryer, David Gil,
& Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 5053. Oxford: OUP.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.), In honor
of Mary Haas, 557609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pica, Pierre. 2001. Introduction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: v-xii.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.),
Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112171. Canberra: AIAS.
Trbs, Holger. 1998. Funktionale Sprachbeschreibung des Jeli (West-Mande). (Mande Languages and
Linguistics, 3). Kln: Rdiger Kppe.