26.4827, Review: Ling Theories; Syntax; Typology: Wiltschko (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-4827. Fri Oct 30 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.4827, Review: Ling Theories; Syntax; Typology: Wiltschko (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:29:04
From: Joseph Windsor [jww.phonology at gmail.com]
Subject: The Universal Structure of Categories

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36061317


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-4373.html

AUTHOR: Martina  Wiltschko
TITLE: The Universal Structure of Categories
SUBTITLE: Towards a Formal Typology
SERIES TITLE: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Joseph W Windsor, University of Calgary

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

INTRODUCTION

The Universal Structure of Categories is an attempt to reconcile two streams of syntactic analyses; those which the author describes as belonging to the Universal Base Hypothesis (UBH), or the generative tradition of Universal Grammar (UG), and those she describes as belonging to the No Base Hypothesis (NBH), or functional typologist literature which rejects the notion of UG. The work presented in this monograph represents an ongoing research agenda, and as such is a preliminary sketch of the proposed theory. While I call this monograph a preliminary sketch, it is far from premature. Each of the arguments made in the book is carefully researched and systematically analyzed in terms of the UBH, NBH, and the hypothesis presented here, the Universal Spine Hypothesis (USH).
	
In this review, I briefly outline the eight chapters of the book, make some critical comments on the organization and argumentation, and conclude with a strong recommendation that syntacticians —regardless of theoretical commitment— read and consider the proposed research agenda and accept the author’s invitation to expand and refine the hypothesis through novel language data.

SUMMARY

The monograph itself is divided into eight chapters which each tackle a slightly different topic in an attempt to answer three main questions: (i.) What are grammatical categories? (ii.) How do we identify them? (iii.) Are they universal? The first chapter outlines the need for such questions by discussing universality and how it is treated by the two opposing hypotheses. Specifically, Wiltschko argues that the proliferation of categories and variability are problems with the UBH. The three major problems to this approach she provides are: Hypothesized universal categories are (i.) not universally attested, (ii.) not formally identical, and (iii.) do not cover the full range of attested categories cross-linguistically. As for the NBH, Wiltschko argues that it misses the fact that all languages do have categories, that generalization —though perhaps not fixed universals— can be made across languages based on certain categories, and that domain effects are universally attested. The
  universal categories which she proposes minimally consist of those given in (1), and are argued to be arranged cross-linguistically in that order such that discourse functions (i.e., vocative case) associate with the spine higher than grammatical or event functions (i.e., person pronouns or aspect, respectively), which in turn associate with the spine higher than a lexical category.

(1) Universal ordering effects of categories (example 41, p. 22)
c:DISCOURSE > c:GRAMMATICAL > c:EVENT > c:VERB

Finally, Wiltschko gives a preliminary sketch of the USH which is meant to bridge the gap between these two theoretical extremes in that the USH allows for the creation of syntactic categories (c) through a universal categorizer whereby a universal syntactic function κ combines with a language-specific Unit of Language (UoL):

(2) The Universal Categorizer (example 44, p. 24)
c = κ + UoL

The USH, then, reflects the fact that there is something universal about the syntax of language (κ:function), and that variability exists via language-specific implementation of these functions. This is instantiated in the two core claims of the monograph:

(3) Core claims of the USH (adapted from p. 24)
a. Language-specific categories (c) are constructed from a small set of universal categories κ and language-specific UoLs
b. The set of universal categories κ is hierarchically organized where each layer of κ is defined by a unique function (κ:linking, κ:anchoring, κ: point-of-view, κ:classification)

The author uses Chapter 2 to provide a history of the notion of a syntactic spine including topics such as derivation and structural dependence (Chomsky 1965, 1980), C-command (Reinhart 1976), the Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994), and the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985), among many others. Wiltschko suggests that a reader familiar with this history can skip this chapter, but I recommend reading it if only to re-familiarize oneself with some of the concepts, especially since the Mirror Principle will be relied on quite heavily in the remainder of the monograph. Other important concepts covered in this chapter are scope, domain effects, the association of arguments and the spine, and nominal-verbal parallelism, among many others.

In Chapter 3, Wiltschko returns to one of her original questions: How can grammatical categories be identified? She outlines the base assumption of the USH, that c does not contain an intrinsic association with any substantive content by virtue of UG, and uses that assumption to make predictions to test how, where, and when a given UoL will associate with a particular κ. These predictions have to do with obligation, head effects, allowance for Ø-marking, and allowance for expletive interpretation as well as diagnostics concerning contrast, function, and patterning (i.e., whether or not a UoL displays category-neutral behavior).

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are all very similar in that they each explore evidence for only one of the four κ-function categories proposed in this monograph ‒ κ:anchoring. Chapter 4 introduces evidence for κ:anchoring in independent clauses, Chapter 5 looks at κ:anchoring in dependent clauses, and Chapter 6 examines κ:anchoring in the nominal domain. Each of these chapters follows a similar format in that Wiltschko begins by introducing the phenomena she will explore in the chapter, shows how variation between languages makes it difficult to maintain a universalist explanation, shows how generalization across the variability makes it difficult to maintain a functionalist explanation, and finally how the USH not only captures the variability and generalizations, but also predicts them. This pattern is also repeated for Chapter 7 which examines a second USH function ‒ κ:point-of-view. Throughout these chapters, Wiltschko uses a host of data drawn from English, Blackfoot (Kainai), H
 alkomelem (Halq’eméylem – Upriver Halkomelem), Squamish (Skwxwu7mesh), and her native dialect of Upper Austrian German. These data cover a wide range of constructions from person deixis, spatio-temporal divisions, realis/irrealis, direct/inverse, counterfactuals, Telicity-Aspect-Marking, control, case, and subjunctives. A crucial point made by the author in this monograph (see also her joint work with Ritter (2004, 2005, 2009, to appear)) is that each of these languages (with the exception of English) lacks the language-specific category c:TENSE which she argues is an instantiation of κ:anchoring  (manifested by c:PERSON in Blackfoot, c:LOCATION in Halkomelem, and c:REALIS in Upper Austrian German (for examples)). This serves as the basis for discussing the implementation of the various κ-functions through combination with language-specific UoLs and displays both the variability possible in the system and the ability of the USH to form generalizations in spite of that surface
  variability.

The final chapter of the monograph, Chapter 8, is a relatively short conclusion dedicated to summarizing the monograph, but also reiterating and expanding on the fact that there is a definitive need for a formal typology. As Wiltschko states, “I submit that a formal typology must serve as a prerequisite for two essential linguistic tasks: discovery of and comparison between language-specific categories” (p. 303). In this way —and via the USH— she hopes to bridge the gap between universalist and functionalist theoretical commitments and offer a foundation for a formal theory for such investigation and scholarship. As one of my own mentors once told me, theories are like ships in the ocean – you can abandon one if you want, but you need a new one to jump to or you’re left treading water. This seems to be the sentiment which Wiltschko wishes to convey in this chapter – that there is no reason “formal” and “typology” need to be at odds with one another, and that a t
 heory is a necessary part of doing research. She proposes the USH is that theoretical device and raises a number of open questions where she invites future scholarship to help refine the USH and even propose additional κ-functions not yet considered or researched in depth. She acknowledges that while she has proposed four κ-functions, she has not discussed κ:linking or κ:classification almost at all. She refers interested readers to Bliss ([2013]) for a complete discussion of κ:linking based on evidence from Blackfoot and Thoma (forthcoming) for evidence of a higher functional layer, κ:grounding, based on Bavarian German.

EVALUATION

Before pointing out a few critiques of this monograph, it must first be stated that the combination of facts and analyses presented there are convincing that the USH is on the correct path. While there is no single argument or piece of evidence that in and of itself is critical, the total picture presented by Wiltschko does show how the USH may be used to find meaningful generalizations between (un)related languages without drawing on the notion that everything is innate. With that stated, one of the down sides of this monograph is the strawman description of competing theories. Wiltschko introduces both the UBH and the NBH as extremes of each of those theories which will be easily knocked down by the compromising USH which falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum that she creates. The spectrum places Generative UG approaches on one side suggesting that if we continue to discover new languages with new grammatical markers not previously attested (i.e., the DIRECT/INVERSE marking
  system of Blackfoot), then the inventory of grammatical components would need to be potentially infinite (§1.2.4). At the other end of the spectrum is the functionalist NBH which is presented as containing no universality to make generalizations over patterns of multifunctionality or of contrast across languages, nor does it predict these patterns to exist (p.22). Most modern generative syntacticians embrace variability and utilize innateness not to capture every single grammatical category, but to explain acquisition in the face of Poverty of the Stimulus — a point that Wiltschko raises following a discussion of dissenting functionalist opinions which describe UG as “at most a convenient fiction” (Dryer 1997:117). The extreme picture Wiltschko presents of functionalist approaches (though she has found an impressive list of authors who would seem to back up the picture she presents) makes it seem as if generalization is impossible. Even if functionalist syntacticians believe
  that “there are no cross-linguistic grammatical categories of any type” (p. 20), generalization would still be possible as a means of human cognition regardless of whether this aspect is part of the linguistic grammar or not. In order to state that generalization is impossible one would have to argue that functionalist syntacticians hold to the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language shapes our cognition – which is something none of the authors (including Wiltschko) would want to argue. Nevertheless, if one can see that Wiltschko is not trying to shame existing theories, but is creating a spectrum of syntactic theories in which to frame the USH, than this particular style of argument can be viewed as less of a rhetorical style and more a way to situate the proposed hypothesis.

Moving away from the background to the explanation of the proposed hypothesis, Wiltschko frequently reminds the reader that the USH is a current research agenda, and that the universal spine she proposes minimally consists of the four κ:function categories that she diagrams in her examples 80 and 6 (pp. 78, 253). One of her goals with the manuscript is to encourage additional scholarship on the topic. As such, she leaves the door open for other researchers to provide evidence for additional κ-functions. However, of the four functions proposed, only κ:anchoring receives substantial attention in this monograph. This one function is the subject of three of the five substantive content chapters, the others focussing on predictions of the hypothesis (chapter 3) and a single chapter (chapter 7) exploring κ:point-of-view. Much work went into providing evidence for the κ:anchoring function. Giving equal weight to each of the four functions in such detail would have made this book unwiel
 dy, and thus Wiltschko narrows the scope of the project, presumably for reasons of space. The large attention to the single κ:anchoring function, though, raises two problems. Although Wiltschko directs the interested reader to Bliss ([2013]) for a detailed discussion of κ:linking based on evidence from Blackfoot, she provides almost no discussion at all of κ:classification. Despite largely ignoring the other functions in this monograph, Wiltschko analyzes the position of various UoLs she establishes as instantiating the anchoring function relative to the hypothesised PoV or Linking position(s) as evidence for the location of these elements ‒ without first establishing evidence for the other positions. The second problem that this imbalance creates is that it borders on Maslow’s (1962 [2014]) law of the instrument. Wiltschko examines the role of κ:anchoring so thoroughly (in comparison to the other functions), and in such a variety of domains, that the reader begins to wonder
  if her analysis has become clouded with the desire to find instantiations of the function in the various domains where it is predicted. As stated earlier, there was no single lynch-pin argument for the USH, but rather it is the collection of evidence which is convincing. In some instances, the additional evidence provided strained credulity. One particular example of this is Wiltschko’s analysis of the German pronoun system. Wiltschko suggests that certain pronouns in the language may be compositional, where the ''d'', ''s'', ''m'' initial consonants may be analyzed as person markers and the –ich as an identity predicate (§6.4.2). She uses evidence from similar constructions (in the same parts of the paradigm) in other languages such as French to show cross-linguistic generalizability. This is reminiscent of previous analyses that d-/ð- is a definite morpheme in various Germanic languages (Vater 1984; Chomsky 1995; Wiltschko 1998; Bernstein et al. 1999; Déchaine & Wiltschko 
 2002; den Dikken 2006; Bernstein 2008; Katzir 2011; Leu 2008; Roehrs 2013). However, as we know, (some) pronouns are among the list of lexemes most resistant to diachronic change (Swadesh 1952, 1971), and therefore, their striking similarity between these languages should not be taken as strong evidence for this compositionality. Further, Wiltschko fails to provide a rationale as to why other pronouns in these paradigms (or in still other languages) do not show the same compositionality. This is not to say that the analysis is flawed, but merely that it lacks the necessary evidence to be convincing and in this particular example, comes across as a stretch of the data to fit the theory.

In the end, these two rhetorical/formatting choices are generally the only complaints I can make about this monograph, and despite them, the hypothesis remains very appealing. Conversely, there are also many benefits of assuming the USH. One of the major strengths of this hypothesis —in addition to its ability to compromise between the universalist and functionalist ends of the analytical spectrum in order to both capture variation and generalization— is that it provides a direct answer to a question that has gone unanswered in the literature for a long time. On the topic of parallelism between the nominal and verbal domains —a research area which has garnered large attention for over four decades (Chomsky 1970, 2008; Abney 1987; Szabolcsi 1994; Siloni 1990; Giusti 1996; Lecarme 1996, 1997, 2008; Bennis et al 1998; Radford 2000; Bernstein 2001a, b; Ogawa 2001; Wiltschko 2003; Nordlinger & Sadler 2004; Aboh 2004; Haegeman 2006, Hageman & Ürögdi 2010; Bliss 2013 – among many 
 others), Giusti (1996) notes that the parallel between the two domains is not perfect and that the nominal domain shows more restrictions than the verbal domain, but does not attempt to answer why that may be. The USH makes two predictions regarding this fact: that verbs are basic and nouns are somehow special (since patterns of nominalization are far more common than patterns of verbalization (p. 248)) suggests that the behavior of the latter should be subject to additional restriction; and, since categories are formed by the combination of κ + UoL —and variation is expected under this hypothesis— we expect to find differences in the categories formed in the separate syntactic domains.

CONCLUSION

This book, an introduction to the Universal Spine Hypothesis, and largely a body of evidence for the κ:anchoring function, is highly recommended for syntacticians of any theoretical commitment but is geared towards a more specialized audience. Steps are taken to provide novice syntacticians the necessary background to evaluate the evidence and usefulness of the hypothesis relative to the existing body of literature, but the writing style calls for a more experienced reader who can evaluate each individual piece of evidence on its own merits and see the larger picture that Wiltschko is trying to paint. As previously mentioned, there are some analyses presented in this monograph which are not convincing, despite the compelling arguments of the author, but this does not at all detract from the usefulness of this research tool.

REFERENCES 

Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation: MIT.

Aboh, Enoch. 2004. Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004. 1-12.

Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373-415.

Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Marcel den Dikken. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. JCGL 1. 85-117.

Bernstein, Judy. 2001. Focussing the right way in Romance determiner phrases. Probus 13. 1-30.

Bernstein, Judy. 2001. The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain, in M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. 536-561. Malden: Blackwell. 

Bernstein, Judy. 2008. English th-forms. In Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management. 213-332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Bernstein, Judy, Wayne Cowart, & Dana McDaniel. 1999. Bare singular effects in genitive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 493-502.

Bliss, Heather Anne. 2013. The Blackfoot confirgurationality conspiracy: Parallels and differences in clausal and nominal structures. Ph.D. dissertation. UBC.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. 184-221. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1-46.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Current Studies in Linguistics Series 45. 133-166.

Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 409-442.

den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givon. 115-143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Giusti, Giuliana. 1996. Is there a FocusP and a TopP in the Noun Phrase structure? UVWPL 6. 105-128.

Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116. 1651-1669.

Haegeman, Liliane & Barbara Ürögdi. 2010. Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36. 111-152.

Katzir, Roni. 2011. Morphosemantic mismatches, structural economy, and licensing. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 45-82.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2008. Tense and modality in nominals. In J Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), Time and modality. 195-225. Dordrecht: Springer. 

Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1997. Nominal tense and tense theory. In J. M. Marandin & C. Sorin (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2, The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1996. Tense in the nominal system: the Somali DP. In J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm and U. Shlonsky (eds), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, The Hague : Holland Academic Graphics.

Leu, Thomas. 2008. The internal syntax of determiners. Ph.D. dissertation: New York University.

Maslow, Abraham H. 1962 [2014]. Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company Inc.

Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in a crosslinguistic perspective. Language 80. 776-806.

Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. A unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Radford, Andrew. 2000. NP shells. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 33. 2-22.

Reinhart, Tanya Miriam. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2004. The lack of tense as a syntactic category: Evidence from Blackfoot and Halkomelem. In Jason C. Brown & Tyler Peterson (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 341-370.

Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2005. Anchoring events to utterances without tense. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 343-351.

Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In Jeroen Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography. 153-201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. To appear. The composition of INFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

Roehrs, Dorian. 2013. The inner makeup of definite determiners: The case of Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25. 295-411.

Siloni, Tal. 1990. On the parallelism between CP and DP: The case of Hebrew semi-relatives. Proceedings of LCJL 1. 135-153.

Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96. 452-463.

Swadesh, Morris. 1971. The origin and diversification of language. Joel Sherzer (ed.). Chicago: Aldine.

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In Ferene Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.) The syntactic structure of Hungarian. 179-275. Bradford: Emerald Publishing Group Ltd. 

Thoma, Sonja. Forthcoming. The syntax of discourse: Evidence from Bavarian discourse particles. Ph.D. dissertation, UBC.

Vater, Heinz. 1984. Determinantien und quantoren im Deutschen. Seitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3. 19-42.

Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 143-181.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of Tense on D and its consequences for case theory. Lingua 113, 659-695.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Joseph W. Windsor is a PhD candidate in Linguistics at the University of Calgary. His research centers on the phonology-syntax interface and on Nominal-Verbal syntactic parallelism which he investigates primarily using evidence from Blackfoot and Irish. His forthcoming dissertation, The External DemP Hypothesis: Prosodic and Syntactic evidence from Irish and Blackfoot will incorporate the Universal Spine Hypothesis (discussed here) and propose an additional functional layer within that framework.




----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-4827	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/