<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I think Tom is correct that some languages take grammaticalization
further than others, and this applies to both form and meaning (as
shown in <i>The evolution of language</i> 1994 Bybee, Perkins and
Pagliuca). Our data suggest not that this is just where a language is
on the cycle, but rather that it can be a stable feature of a language.
Otherwise all languages would have structures at all stages of
grammaticalization. Instead, what happens in languages that do not
grammaticalize enough to reach the stage of inflection is that newly
grammaticalizing structures take over and replace the maturing ones
before they get a chance to go too far. I suspect that this is related
to a cultural/discourse phenomenon--the type of inferences a
speaker/hearer makes in conversation. This is articulated in my paper
in <i>Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicted to T.
Givon </i>(1997). See also discussion on southeast Asian languages by
Walter. Bisang.<br>
<br>
Dan Everett should also look at R. Perkins <i>Grammar, Deixis and
Culture</i> 1992 for a methodologically excellent study of the relation
between certain cultural features and grammar. <br>
<br>
Joan Bybee<br>
<br>
Tom Givon wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4B2C0AFA.1030807@uoregon.edu" type="cite"><br>
<br>
Dan's agenda, if I understand it, has been to find correlations between
grammar & culture. Whorf re-heated? I would rather look at it as a
matter of Degree of Grammaticalization, where one could factor it into
two dimensions.
<br>
<br>
First, as pointed out by Paul, at the frequency distribution level
spoken language is always less grammaticalized than written language.
Two old papers (Keenan/Ochs & T. Bennett 1977; Givon 1979) made
this point. I my own article (also a chapter in OUG 1979), I suggested
that spoken language is more pidgin-like, i.e. less grammaticalized.
Since written language is a superficial artifact piggy-backed on the
real thing, one may say that what riled Dan against Chomskian
universals was really that they have always been based on well-planned
(written) language, and Dan was dealing with a real language.
<br>
<br>
The other dimension is cross-language typological--qand thus ultimately
diachronic. Li and Thompson (1976) in a paper on topic-prominent
languages (vs. subject-prominent ones) stumbled into this tho didn't
quite know how to digest it. But what they described was a dimention of
grammaticalization. And they were looking at serial-verb languages,
which (at least at some stage of their diachrony) are notoriously
under-grammaticalized. Indeed, Charles Li was suggesting at the time
(in private comm.) that Chinese was a pidgin language. My own view at
the time (and still now) was that he was looking only at written
Chinese, and that the Spoken language had already gone 2,500 years
worth of granmmaticalization. Still, for each area (functional domain)
of grammar, one could find languages that are under-grammaticalize. But
this simply means that they are at a low point on the diachronic cycle.
And Marianne Mithun (2009 and earlier papers) has recently shown that
if you look very carefully, you can see early stages of
grammaticalization in the intonation packaging (in her case, Iroquois
subordinate clauses). So cross language differences often boil down to
where in the grammaticalization cycle a language--or particular
grammar-coded domains within it--is/are.
<br>
<br>
Coming back to Dan's cross-cultural obsession, my question to him would
be (well, has been...): Ute is as much the product of a small,
intimate, isolated, stone-age society as Pirha. So how come Ute,
compared to his description of Piraha, is over-grammaticalized to the
max? And, how come within a single Ute domain (passives) I can find at
least two successive grammaticalization cycles--during a period where
there was no cultural change? Could it be that Piraha had undergone a
relatively-recent pidginization cycle prior to meeting Dan? In the
Chinese contact area Charles Li talked about, such pidginization (prior
to Archaeic Chinese) has certainly has certainly been documented.
<br>
<br>
Merry Christmass to y'all, TG
<br>
<br>
================
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul Hopper wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Typologists and Funknetters,
<br>
<br>
It's interesting that many of the items on Dan's list would be good
<br>
quantitative characterizations of conversational English; they would be
<br>
statistical but not grammatical constraints. Dan's project might be
<br>
formulated as: How far along this continuum is it possible for a
language
<br>
to go? (Is Spoken English a 'primitive' language?)
<br>
<br>
We learned last year in Funknet how a single angry "flame" can torpedo
a
<br>
discussion group--Funknet has been basically quiescent for several
months
<br>
now. A pity. The best way to deal with a flame is to ignore it.
<br>
<br>
- Paul
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, December 18, 2009 08:17, Daniel Everett wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Folks,
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am interested in beginnng a statistical study on the relative rarity
of
<br>
the following patterns (this query will not be the basis for the study!
<br>
Just a tool to start gathering data). I am first interested in knowing
of
<br>
languages that have any one of the specific properties below. Next I
am
<br>
interested in learning of any languages that are described by any
subset
<br>
of these. Please respond to me individually, rather than to the list as
a
<br>
whole. I will post a summary if there are enough responses. I would
<br>
particularly appreciate any suggestions for particular corpora to
consult
<br>
in rarer languages.
<br>
<br>
Thanks very much in advance for your answers.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dan
<br>
**
<br>
1. The language lacks independent factive verbs and epistemic verbs
(not
<br>
counting the verb 'to see'). 2. The language has no morphosyntactic
marker
<br>
of subordination. 3. It has no coordinating disjunctive particles (no
<br>
words like 'or'). 4. It has no coordinating conjunctive particle (no
words
<br>
like 'and'). 5. No unambiguous complement clauses (no strong evidence
for
<br>
embedding as opposed to juxtaposition). 6. No multiple possession (no
<br>
structures like 'John's father's son' - whether pre or postnominal) .
7.
<br>
No multiple modification (no structures like 'two big red apples').
<br>
8. No scope from one clause into another: 'John does not believe you
left'
<br>
(where 'not' can negate 'believe' or 'left', as in 'It is not the case
<br>
that John believes that you left' vs. 'It is the case that John
believes
<br>
that you did not leave') 9. No long-distance dependencies:
<br>
'Who do you think John believes __ (that Bill saw__)?'
<br>
'Ann, I think he told me he tried to like ___'
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>