recent paper

[Tom Givon]

Dear FUNK folks,

A month ago David Kronenfeld sent me a recently-published paper 
("Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in 
word-order universals", Nature, 473:79-82, by M. Dunn, S.J. Greenhill, 
S. C. Levinson & R.D. Gray) that made some interesting claims about the 
cross-language distribution of word-order universals (henceforth 
"Greenberg correlations"). David asked me to comment on the paper, which 
is not all that easy to interpret--primarily because of methodology and  
terminology imported from quantitative evolutionary biology. However, 
since one of the co-authors is a well-known & thoughtful linguist (Steve 
Levinson, MPI-Nijmegen), I thought that the effort might be worth 
while.  I am still not sure I understand the paper's conclusions 
correctly. But I see, tentatively, a way of interpreting them that would 
make sense.
     The paper notes first that the "standard" functional-cognitive 
explanation of Greenberg's correlation did not pan out, be they 
Lehmann's "harmony", Vennemann's "operator-operand",  or their formal 
equivalents (X-bar, GB parameters). Alas ignoring a well-established 
alternative explanation (see below), the paper then shows that 
statistically, word-order-cum-morphology correlations are 
lineage-specific, i.e. family-specific. Using data from four 
families--Indo-European, Austronesian Bantu (a sub-family of 
Niger-Congo) and Uto-Aztecan, the paper concludes that only within  
historically-related groups or sub-groups can one find predictable 
"Greenberg correlations". The conclusion the authors draw is that 
"Greenberg correlations" are not universal, but depend on "cultural 
evolution". Or, de-jargonized, that languages that share more of their 
diachronic history also share more of their "Greenberg correlations".
     For the past 40 years (Givon 1971, 1974, 1979 chs 5-6-7, 2001 ch. 
5, 2009 chs 3-4-5), and following the illustrious tradition of F. Bopp, 
H. Paul and A. Meillet, I have attempted, apparently in vain, to 
convince y'all that word-order-cum-morphology "Greenberg correlations" 
are the direct product of diachronic pathways of grammaticalization. And 
that apparent exception to those correlations are due to two major 
factors: (a) the existence of alternative grammaticalization patterns 
for the same construction or morpheme; and (b) word-order change that 
leaves recalcitrant old morphology "harmonized" with the old 
word-order,  thus "incompatible" with the current word-order. The 
overall conclusion is that synchronic typology is the direct and 
straight-forward product of diachrony, and that typological universals 
are mediated by diachrony (as well as, to a lesser extent, by 
acquisition and evolution).
     Of course, it may well be that I have misinterpreted the thrust of 
the Nature  paper altogether, but if it means anything coherent  to me, 
then it simply re-states well-know diachronic observations.