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

Wed Jan 20 22:42:22 UTC 2016

Good point (and I hadn’t thought of that). However, homology isn’t necessarily limited to cases of common descent (though it generally works that way in comparative anatomy), viz the Oxford ED

Homology: the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure: many proteins show homology across their whole length | aregion of homology with another gene.

So one could potentially use structural characteristics of two unrelated languages to argue for a homology. I actually think the fact that it is commonplace to do this in linguistics (even if we don’t descrbie what we do in these terms) in signficant in and of itself. Why can we do it when comparing languages but not so much when comparing anatomies? It might have something to do with constraints on design space of language, or the physical or psycholinguistic limitations of speech/signing (i.e., there are only so many solutions to a given problem and only so many “pieces” in the grammatical tool kit to play with). Seems like something worth looking into.

DAvid

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Siva Kalyan <sivakalyan.princeton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Isn’t homology the equivalent of cognacy? E.g. a passive construction in language A might be analogous to a passive in language B, but homologous to an ergative construction. Homology, like cognacy, can only be defined between related organisms/languages; it just so happens that all life forms are known to be related, whereas languages aren't.
> 
> Siva
> 
>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 9:18 AM, David Beck <dbeck at ualberta.ca <mailto:dbeck at ualberta.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, which is an excellent example for linguists and typologists to keep in mind, because biologists also distinguish analogous structures (wings in dragonflies and birds) from homologous structures (wings in bats and pterosaurs—and hands in humans). Analogy might seem to correspond roughly to correspondences (how is a particular thing accomplished in a language?), whereas homology is somewhat harder to define. It would amount to identifying equivalent structures in different languages, irrespective of their function (e.g., identifying a passive construction based on change in valence, even though in Lushootseed it is used for reference-tracking and in English for backgrounding of the agent). Of course, without a common set of structural notions and criteria to talk about structure across languages, it is going to be hard to deal with homology.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu <mailto:dryer at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Notions like wings in biology are somewhat analogous.
>>> 
>>> On 1/20/16 4:46 PM, Östen Dahl wrote:
>>>> I am still a bit puzzled by Martin’s “comparative concepts” so here is a question for him: Are comparative concepts specific to linguistics or can you find something analogous in other fields, such as the natural and social sciences?
>>>>  
>>>> östen
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Från: Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>] För Matthew Dryer
>>>> Skickat: den 20 januari 2016 20:32
>>>> Till: Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru> <mailto:peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>; lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> Ämne: Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of language complexity/simplicity
>>>>  
>>>> Peter,
>>>>  
>>>> The point of classifying the language as SVO is that it behaves like an SVO language as far as word order correlations are concerned. Not classifying it as SVO means that one would fail to explain the correlations. Hawkins’ theory predicts that such a language counts as SVO. The class of languages I treat as SVO is defined roughly as those languages where the statistically dominant order in usage is AVP. There is nothing that the grammars of this set of languages share: these languages resemble each other only at the level of usage, not at the level of grammar. Hawkins’ theory predicts that the set of languages that I classify as SVO should tend to have prepositions. His theory predicts that the set of languages that have prepositions need not have anything in common in their grammars, only at the level of usage.
>>>>  
>>>> Matthew
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/19/16 2:58 PM, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
>>>> Then I can't help asking a very naive question, appearing as though I haven't read the relevant literature (I have): if, as Matthew says, "classifying a language as SVO makes no claim about the categories in the language, nor that these categories determine word order even if the language has such categories", what's the point of classifying the given language as SVO in the first place? If the categories of a particular language can be totally at variance with those notions which typologists employ for comparative purposes, then the fact that a given language happens to be classified as SVO appears to be completely arbitrary and non-informative. Even worse, given this stance regarding the correspondence between comparative concepts and language-particular categories, word order correlations just can't follow, let alone be explained. Correlations between, say, OV and NPost in a given language are and have to be stated in terms of the categories relevant for <
>>>>  /
>>>> pre>
>>>>           
>>>>  this lan
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>>  g
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>> uage, aren't they? And if such language-particular correlations can be mapped on robustly observed cross-linguistic patterns subject to well-articulated processing explanations such as those advanced by Hawkins, then, by necessity, this mapping cannot be just arbitrary, and vice versa.
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>> Again, I admit that I don't understand something.
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>           
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>>         
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160120/acfc9d81/attachment.htm>