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

Thu Jan 21 21:54:51 UTC 2016

Dear Bingfu,

well, if we consider "for 10 dollars" with "sell" syntactic arguments, then clearly there are verbs with more, e.g. Russian "arendovat'" 'rent' subcategorized for the following arguments:
who rents, what, from whom, for how long and for which price. See work by the Russian classic Yury Apresyan, e.g. his 1974 book translated into English in 1992, if I remember correctly.
But the real question is "what is an argument?" and "how to distinguish arguments from non-arguments?". Personally, I would not go into a discussion of these issues now.

Best,

Peter

-- 
Peter Arkadiev, PhD
Institute of Slavic Studies
Russian Academy of Sciences 
Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow
peterarkadiev at yandex.ru
http://www.inslav.ru/ob-institute/sotrudniki/279-peter-arkadiev

21.01.2016, 05:56, "bingfu Lu" <lubingfu at yahoo.com>:
> May I remind the following common property that fits all languages.
> As Pesetsky (1995:185)points out,in all languages, a verb can have four arguments at most. Here are some examples where the verbs each have four arguments, including the subject.
>
> (10) Sue bet [John] [$500] [that the world would end on Tuesday].
>
> (11) Bill wagered [me] [a day's pay] [that the world would end on Wednesday].
>
> (12) Mary sold [her car] [to John] [for $500].
>
> Pesetsky, David M. (1995)  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
>
> And I　would like to raise another quantitative universal:
> In all languages, in a clause, a verb cannot carry more than
> about seven (7+2)dependents (arguments and adjuncts).
>
> I would like to hear counter-examples if the above two universals not correct.
>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> From: Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu>
>> To: Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>; "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of language complexity/simplicity
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I don’t know whether my last email answered any of your questions, but let me simply respond with a set of assertations. Basically, every opinion you express in your email, I agree with:
>>
>> 1.  Yes, word order correlations are reflected in grammars
>>
>> 2.  Yes, usage and grammar correspond to each other in principled and non-arbitrary ways
>>
>> 3.  I suspect that Hawkins would agree with me that the notion of OV language includes, not only languages where there is a grammatical rule specifying that the language is OV but also languages where OV is simply more frequent in usage.
>>
>> 4.  I too am interested in what grammars of different languages have in common and how they differ, much less, I must confess, in the differences or similarities in usage
>>
>> 5.  I’m not sure what you might mean by “grammars are inaccessible to typology (and vice versa)”, but I can’t imagine an interpretation that I would agree with, so we must agree on that one too.
>>
>> The fact that the word order correlations are reflected in grammars doesn’t mean that word order correlations are only reflected in grammars. Consider a language which lacks a rule saying the language is OV but where the actual factors conditioning word order result in a higher frequency of OV. Such languages usually have postpositions rather than prepositions. But since the grammar doesn’t say the language is OV (it’s only OV at the level of usage), the correlation between OV and postpositions is not reflected in the grammar. The only reason I’m interested in usage in this domain is that any account of the word order correlations that attempts to characterize it as a generalization over grammars necessarily fails since the correlations go beyond grammar.
>>
>> There is a difference between being interested in what different languages have in common and how they differ and being interested in what grammars of different languages have in common and how they differ. One cannot understand the word correlations if one is only interested in what grammars have in common and how they differ.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 1/20/16 5:54 PM, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew,
>>>
>>> I must confess that I failed to understand what you mean, especially by "usage". I have always believed, evidently erroneously, that word order correlations are somehow reflected in grammars, and I have always understood Hawkins claims (as reflected in his 2004 and 2014 books) as saying that usage and grammar correspond to each other in principled and non-arbitrary ways. When Hawkins writes, e.g. about the differences between OV and VO languages in chapter 7 of his 2014 book, it is much more abour grammar than about usage - or I must admit that I have grossly misunderstood him.
>>>
>>> But anyway, I am interested in what grammars of different languages have in common and how they differ, much less, I must confess, in the differences or similarities in usage. From what you say it appears to me that grammars are inaccessible to typology (and vice versa) - a conclusion I will never accept.
>>>
>>> But again, perhaps I simply don't understand...
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Arkadiev, PhD
>>> Institute of Slavic Studies
>>> Russian Academy of Sciences
>>> Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow
>>> peterarkadiev at yandex.ru
>>> http://www.inslav.ru/ob-institute/sotrudniki/279-peter-arkadiev
>>>
>>> 20.01.2016, 22:32, "Matthew Dryer" <dryer at buffalo.edu>:
>>>
>>>> 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 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
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp