[Lingtyp] Probabilistic typology vs. typology-based grammatical theory

[Matthew Dryer]

Peter,

As I said in a recent posting, I personally find the unusual phenomena 
MORE interesting than the dominant patterns. That is partly because I 
simply find them intrinsically interesting, partly because they add to 
the evidence how different languages can be, and partly because they so 
often show that what was thought to be an absolute universal is actually 
statistical. My hunch is that these unusual phenomena represent a tiny 
random subset of what is possible but unusual in language, that there 
are many equally likely phenomena that by accident are not attested in 
the world's languages.

Matthew

On 1/26/16 5:38 PM, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
> Thank you, Matthew, for clarifying this - but nonetheless, I maintain 
> that even those "non-dominant" patterns whose rarity is apparently due 
> to some kind of "functional deficience" (e.g. non-efficiency in 
> Hawkins' terms) or whatever else we consider "linguistic reasons", 
> deserve close attention.
> Just to give an example I myself consider to be both striking and 
> telling, the system of "multiple case marking" in Kayardild as 
> described by Evans (1995) and insightfully reanalyzed by Erich Round 
> (2013) is clearly a typological rarissimum, but on the other hand I 
> believe that it is revealing of the deep mechanisms possibly at work 
> in all or most languages. Even if you are reluctant to accept the last 
> point which might sound "generativist", I would still argue that there 
> is nothing "unnatural" or "dysfunctional" in the grammatical system of 
> Kayardild, just to the contrary, this is one of the most transparent 
> and logical linguistic systems ever attested.
> Round, Erich R. (2013). Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. OUP.
> Best regards,
> Peter
> -- 
> Peter Arkadiev, PhD
> Institute of Slavic Studies
> Russian Academy of Sciences
> Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow
> peterarkadiev at yandex.ru
> http://www.inslav.ru/ob-institute/sotrudniki/279-peter-arkadiev
> 26.01.2016, 17:21, "Matthew Dryer" <dryer at buffalo.edu>:
>>
>> Matthew writes: "The rara are relevant to typological work in that 
>> they are crucial for demonstrating the range of ways that languages 
>> do things, and in so far as that is theory, they are of theoretical 
>> importance. But they are not particularly relevant to the theoretical 
>> goal of explaining why languages are the way they are, which I think 
>> is primarily explaining why the dominant patterns are dominant."I 
>> think this issue is also more complex, since, as we all know and as 
>> e.g. Elena Maslova (2000) has argued, dominant patterns may be 
>> dominant for all sorts of non-linguistic reasons, and therefore 
>> claiming that more frequent patterns are somehow "better" than rare 
>> ones is a logical mistake. The same concerns rarities, many of which 
>> might well have happened to become rare because of non-linguistic 
>> factors. Moreover, as argued e.g. by Trudgill in his "Sociolinguistic 
>> Typology", what is rare and what is common might have well changed 
>> during the last millenia due to the changes in socioecological 
>> settings. Therefore I would rather say that both dominant and rare 
>> patterns are exlananda on their own right, and that sometimes it 
>> might be instructive to forget about frequencies of certain patterns 
>> in language samples so that these frequencies don't bias us.Best,Peter
>>
>> I have devoted considerable effort in my published research 
>> discussing the problem that Peter describes, showing how it is often 
>> the case that a particular language type may be more frequent for 
>> nonlinguistic reasons and proposing ways to factor out these 
>> nonlinguistic factors. Thus what I mean by “dominant” does not mean 
>> more frequent, but more frequent for what are apparently linguistic 
>> reasons.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 1/26/16 7:10 AM, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
>>> Matthew writes:
>>> "The rara are relevant to typological work in that they are crucial for demonstrating the range of ways that languages do things, and in so far as that is theory, they are of theoretical importance. But they are not particularly relevant to the theoretical goal of explaining why languages are the way they are, which I think is primarily explaining why the dominant patterns are dominant."
>>>
>>> I think this issue is also more complex, since, as we all know and as e.g. Elena Maslova (2000) has argued, dominant patterns may be dominant for all sorts of non-linguistic reasons, and therefore claiming that more frequent patterns are somehow "better" than rare ones is a logical mistake. The same concerns rarities, many of which might well have happened to become rare because of non-linguistic factors. Moreover, as argued e.g. by Trudgill in his "Sociolinguistic Typology", what is rare and what is common might have well changed during the last millenia due to the changes in socioecological settings. Therefore I would rather say that both dominant and rare patterns are exlananda on their own right, and that sometimes it might be instructive to forget about frequencies of certain patterns in language samples so that these frequencies don't bias us.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160126/dc670603/attachment.htm>