[Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of language complexity/simplicity

Tue Jan 19 02:11:26 UTC 2016

I agree entirely with Jan on the need to distinguish semantic categories 
and formal categories. In fact, in a paper of mine that is I have nearly 
completed revising, I have an entire section arguing that generative 
approaches fail to note the fact that a given semantic category often 
has many different formal expressions over different languages and that 
this is problematic for implicit assumptions that equate semantic 
categories with formal categories.

But Jan seems to think that this presents some sort of problem for the 
work I have done in word order typology.He says “When these authors 
subsequently formulate rules and principles on the basis of the data 
they collected, the semantic category labels (Adjective, Genitive, 
Relative Clause, but also e.g. Demonstrative and Numeral) appear to 
stand for _formal_ categories, i.e. categories whose members are defined 
on the basis of structural or morphosyntactic criteria”. But this is 
false. They stand for semantic categories.

Jan seems to think that it is somehow a problem that a given semantic 
category may have many different formal realizations across different 
languages. However, neither in his email nor in his 2009 paper in LT 
does he explain why he sees this as a problem.

There is, I admit, a /potential/ problem.Namely, it might be the case 
that for the purposes of word order correlations, the syntactic 
realization of a semantic category makes a major difference and that 
lumping the different syntactic realizations together is obscuring these 
differences. That is why I have spent considerable time over the years 
collecting data, not only on word order in particular languages, but 
also on the syntactic realization in these languages, precisely to 
examine empirically whether the syntactic realization makes a 
difference. The result is that while the syntactic realization sometimes 
makes a small difference, it is overall irrelevant: by and large, 
generalizations over semantic categories apply the same, regardless of 
the syntactic realization.

Matthew

On 1/18/16 4:41 AM, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:
>
> I think the last word has not been said about Greenbergian word order 
> correlations, mainly because semantic categories and formal categories 
> have not always been clearly distinguished in post-Greenberg (1963) 
> word order studies (Rijkhoff 2009a).* For example, both Hawkins (1983: 
> 12) and Dryer (1992: 120) claimed that they followed Greenberg (1963: 
> 74) in ‘basically applying semantic criteria’ to identify members of 
> the same category across languages, but in practice these semantically 
> defined forms and constructions are treated as formal entities.
>
> If Hawkins and Dryer applied semantic criteria in their 
> cross-linguistic studies, this implies, for example, that their 
> semantic category Adjective must also have included verbal and nominal 
> expressions of adjectival notions (such as relative clauses and 
> genitives), which are typically used in languages that lack a 
> dedicated class of adjectives:
>
> _Kiribati _(Ross 1998: 90)
>
> (1)///teueeaeetikiraoi/(relative clause)
>
> artflower rel 3sg.s be.pretty
>
> ‘a pretty flower’ (lit. ‘a flower that pretties’)
>
> _Makwe_(Devos 2008: 136)
>
> (2)/   muú-nuw-á=ki-búúli/(genitive)
>
> nc1-person pp1-gen=nc7-silence
>
>     ‘a silent person’ (lit. ‘person of silence’)
>
> Relative Clause and Genitive are, however, also semantic categories in 
> their own right in word order studies by Dryer and Hawkins.
>
> When these authors subsequently formulate rules and principles on the 
> basis of the data they collected, the semantic category labels 
> (Adjective, Genitive, Relative Clause, but also e.g. Demonstrative and 
> Numeral) appear to stand for _formal_ categories, i.e. categories 
> whose members are defined on the basis of structural or 
> morphosyntactic criteria. This apparent change of category is not 
> explained, but can be seen in the case of the ‘Heaviness Serialization 
> Principle’ (Hawkins 1983: 90-91) and the ‘Branching Direction Theory’ 
> (Dryer 1992).
>
> Hawkins defined ‘heaviness’ in terms of such non-semantic criteria as 
> (a) length and quantity of morphemes, (b) quantity of words, (c) 
> syntactic depth of branching nodes, and (d) inclusion of dominated 
> constituents.
>
> (3)///Heaviness Serialization Principle/: Rel≥_R Gen≥_R A≥_R Dem/Num
>
> Thus a member of the (semantic? formal?) category Relative Clause is 
> ‘heavier’ than a member of the (semantic? formal?) category Adjective. 
> But Hawkins’s semantic category Adjective must also have included 
> members of the ‘heavy’ formal categories Genitive and Relative Clause 
> (see (1) and (2) above). It is not clear whether the original members 
> of the single semantic category Adjective were later ‘re-categorized’ 
> and distributed over the formal categories Adjective, Genitive and 
> Relative Clause in the /Heaviness Serialization Principle/.
>
> Dryer’s ‘Branching Direction Theory’ refers to a structural feature of 
> the internal syntactic organization of a constituent. According to the 
> ‘Branching Direction Theory’, relative clauses and genitives are 
> phrases, i.e. members of a branching category, whose position relative 
> to the noun correlates with the relative order of Verb and Object, 
> whereas adjectives are non-branching elements, whose position relative 
> to the noun does not correlate with OV or VO order (Dryer 1992: 107-8, 
> 110-1). In this case, too, one may assume that the semantic category 
> Adjective also included members of the formal categories Genitive and 
> Relative Clause (see examples above). Again we do not know what 
> happened to the branching/phrasal members of the erstwhile(?) semantic 
> category Adjective (relative clauses, genitives) when this category 
> was turned into the formal (non-branching) category Adjective that is 
> part of the ‘Branching Direction Theory’.
>
> So as to avoid categorial confusion in cross-linguistic research (and 
> so as to make it possible to produce more reliable results), it is 
> necessary to keep formal and semantic categories apart, as members of 
> these two categories have their own ordering rules or preferences. I 
> also think it is an illusion to think we can give a satisfactory 
> account of the grammatical behaviour of linguistic units -including 
> word order- without taking into consideration functional 
> (interpersonal) categories or ‘discourse units’ (Rijkhoff 2009b, 2015).
>
> * Greenberg (1963: 88) made it clear that he sometimes used formal 
> criteria to remove certain members of a semantic category before he 
> formulated a universal, as in the case of his Universal 22.
>
> *References*
>
> Devos, M. 2008. /A Grammar of Makwe/. München: Lincom Europa.
>
> Dryer, M. S., 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. 
> /Language/ 68-1, 81-138.
>
> Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular 
> reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg 
> (ed.), /Universals of Language/, 73-113. Cambridge MA: MIT.
>
> Hawkins, J. A., 1983. /Word Order Universals: Quantitative analyses of 
> linguistic structure/. New York: Academic Press.
>
> Rijkhoff, J. 2009a. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. 
> /Linguistic Typology/ 13-1, 95‑104.
>
> Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009b. On the co-variation between form and function of 
> adnominal possessive modifiers in Dutch and English. In William B. 
> McGregor (ed.), /The Expression of Possession/ (The Expression of 
> Cognitive Categories [ECC] 2),51‑106. Berlin and New York: Mouton de 
> Gruyter.
>
> Rijkhoff, J. 2015. Word order. In James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), 
> /International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 
> (Second Edition)/, Vol. 25, 644–656. Oxford: Elsevier.
>
> Ross, M. 1998. Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and their 
> morphosyntax. /Oceanic Linguistics/ 37-1, 85-119.
>
> Jan Rijkhoff
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on behalf 
> of Alan Rumsey [Alan.Rumsey at anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 18, 2016 12:23 PM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of 
> language complexity/simplicity
>
> Many thanks to all of you who responded to my posting on this topic, 
> both online and off. All the readings you have pointed me to have 
> indeed been highly relevant and very useful, including an excellent 
> recent publication by Jennifer Culbertson that she pointed me to in 
> her offline response, at 
> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract 
> <redir.aspx?REF=sGl5RomnpE-BF3Bt1foWHNs4EZ9sLFpNokQs5Y0pxDO6ZjPcAyDTCAFodHRwOi8vam91cm5hbC5mcm9udGllcnNpbi5vcmcvYXJ0aWNsZS8xMC4zMzg5L2Zwc3lnLjIwMTUuMDE5NjQvYWJzdHJhY3Q.>
>
> Thanks especially to Matthew Dryer for pointing out that the 
> Greenbergian ‘universal’ I had used as an example – the putative 
> association between VSO and noun-adjective order — had been falsified 
> by his much more thorough 1992 study “The Greenbergian Word Order 
> Correlations”.  My reading of that article and further correspondence 
> with him has confirmed that, by contrast, Greenberg’s universals no 3 
> and 4 were solidly confirmed by his study, namely that SOV languages 
> are far more likely to have postpositions than prepositions and that 
> the reverse is true for VSO  languages.
>
> Drawing on all your suggestions, Francesca and I have now finished a 
> draft of the paper referred to in my posting, called 'Structural 
> Congruence as a Dimension of Language Complexity: An Example from Ku 
> Waru Child Language’.**If any of you would like to read it please let 
> me know and I’ll send it to you.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160118/92951635/attachment.htm>