[Lingtyp] Probabilistic typology vs. typology-based grammatical theory

Tue Jan 26 15:16:42 UTC 2016

Hi all,

I think that if the point were to compile a list of rarities in the sense
of cross-linguistically unusual or even apparently unique features, then
yes, it would be easier and better to bring a feature like the recently
discovered uvular flap in Kuikuro (Demolin, Fausto, and Franchetto).

But the point was not to note curiosities, but rather to think about the
kind of *diachronic* factors that might be implicated in cross-linguistic
distributions. And there is, as far as I know, a cross-linguistic asymmetry
between open and closed syllables, but maybe I'm misinformed. What I had in
mind is Greenberg's 1966 paper on synchronic and diachronic universals in
phonology.

As for the Leipzig conference, I spent some time with the terrific volumes
that Jan Wohlgemouth and Michael Cysouw published, but I didn't see there -
or anywhere else - an attempt to think about the range of diachronic
factors that could be relevant.

Best,
Eitan

Eitan Grossman
Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972 2 588 3809
Fax: +972 2 588 1224

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Everett, Daniel <DEVERETT at bentley.edu>
wrote:

> There was a nice conference on rara and rarissma at the MPI Leipzig some
> years ago that discusses these issues in depth.
>
> I certainly agree with Larry that the phonological example here doesn’t
> belong. Something like the unique sounds in the Amazon might. Peter
> Ladefoged and I wrote on this years ago:
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/416103?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>
> Dan
>
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Larry M. HYMAN <hyman at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> I've been sitting quietly through all of these exchanges, but now that
> phonology is prominently cited in Eitan's message, I have to comment that I
> don't think that closed syllables belong in the table. Everyone agrees that
> open syllables are universal, there's no language without them, but closed
> syllables are not rara in the way the other cited examples are. Perhaps
> languages that have them are in the minority (has anyone done a count?),
> and there are languages which have many more open syllables than closed,
> but there are natural pathways to obtain closed syllables that are quite
> frequent, especially syncope. Some languages allow closed syllables only
> word-finally; others allow them only word-internally. A better example of a
> phonological rarity is a velar implosive, which appears in only 5 of the
> 451 languages in the UPSID database. Of course I don't know how infrequent
> something has to be to be thought of as "rare".
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Eitan Grossman <
> eitan.grossman at mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, rarity might have all sorts of reasons. In something I
>> recently wrote, I try to list a few types of *diachronic *sources for
>> cross-linguistic rarity. Here's a small chunk.
>>
>> For example, (i) a given feature may be (relatively) rare because there
>> are fewer pathways that lead to the feature than away from it. Bybee (2001:
>> 195-197) provides evidence for the argument that there are more open
>> syllables than closed syllables, and only open syllables are (nearly)
>> universal, because new open syllables are constantly being created by
>> regular processes of language change (e.g., coda weakening and loss), while
>> there are fewer processes that lead to closed syllables. Another
>> possibility is that (ii) some rare features may necessitate numerous
>> diachronic ‘steps’ that occur in a certain order in order to develop, as in
>> Harris’ (2008) account of Georgian split case marking or Udi endoclitics.
>> Yet another possibility is that (iii) a certain feature may require rare
>> input structures, as in Grossman et al. (2015), which argues that adverbial
>> subordinator prefixes are rare because they are facilitated by the
>> relatively rare VSO order and case prefixes, and are inhibited by other
>> word orders or case suffixes. Finally, Greenberg (1978) has proposed that
>> (iv) some changes simply may be more frequent than others, a view adopted
>> by Blevins (2009), who states that most languages have coronal segments
>> because coronal maintenance and coronal creation are more frequent than
>> ‘coronal annihilation.’
>>
>> Type
>>
>> Factor
>>
>> Rare feature
>>
>> Documentation
>>
>> pathway
>>
>> Few (vs. many) pathways
>>
>> closed syllables
>>
>> many languages
>>
>> stages
>>
>> Many (vs. few) stages necessary
>>
>> endoclitics
>>
>> Udi (Harris 2008)
>>
>> source
>>
>> Rare (vs. common) source construction
>>
>> adverbial subordinator prefixes
>>
>> Japhug (Grossman et al. submitted)
>>
>> type
>>
>> Rare type of change
>>
>> coronal annihilation
>>
>> Northwest Mekeo (Blevins 2009)
>>
>> Importantly, these types of factors that contribute to cross-linguistic
>> rarity are not mutually exclusive, and all things being equal, one would
>> assume that a feature that is characterized by more of the above factors
>> would be rarer than one that is characterized by fewer of them.
>>
>>
>> One could also add the controversial possibility of inherent
>> (in)stability of a particular feature.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eitan Grossman
>> Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences
>> Hebrew University of Jerusalem
>> Tel: +972 2 588 3809
>> Fax: +972 2 588 1224
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew writes: "The rara are relevant to typological work in that they
>>> are crucial for demonstrating the range of ways that languages do things,
>>> and in so far as that is theory, they are of theoretical importance. But
>>> they are not particularly relevant to the theoretical goal of explaining
>>> why languages are the way they are, which I think is primarily explaining
>>> why the dominant patterns are dominant."  I think this issue is also
>>> more complex, since, as we all know and as e.g. Elena Maslova (2000) has
>>> argued, dominant patterns may be dominant for all sorts of non-linguistic
>>> reasons, and therefore claiming that more frequent patterns are somehow
>>> "better" than rare ones is a logical mistake. The same concerns rarities,
>>> many of which might well have happened to become rare because of
>>> non-linguistic factors. Moreover, as argued e.g. by Trudgill in his
>>> "Sociolinguistic Typology", what is rare and what is common might have well
>>> changed during the last millenia due to the changes in socioecological
>>> settings. Therefore I would rather say that both dominant and rare patterns
>>> are exlananda on their own right, and that sometimes it might be
>>> instructive to forget about frequencies of certain patterns in language
>>> samples so that these frequencies don't bias us.  Best,  Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have devoted considerable effort in my published research discussing
>>> the problem that Peter describes, showing how it is often the case that a
>>> particular language type may be more frequent for nonlinguistic reasons and
>>> proposing ways to factor out these nonlinguistic factors. Thus what I mean
>>> by “dominant” does not mean more frequent, but more frequent for what are
>>> apparently linguistic reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 1/26/16 7:10 AM, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
>>>
>>> Matthew writes:
>>> "The rara are relevant to typological work in that they are crucial for demonstrating the range of ways that languages do things, and in so far as that is theory, they are of theoretical importance. But they are not particularly relevant to the theoretical goal of explaining why languages are the way they are, which I think is primarily explaining why the dominant patterns are dominant."
>>>
>>> I think this issue is also more complex, since, as we all know and as e.g. Elena Maslova (2000) has argued, dominant patterns may be dominant for all sorts of non-linguistic reasons, and therefore claiming that more frequent patterns are somehow "better" than rare ones is a logical mistake. The same concerns rarities, many of which might well have happened to become rare because of non-linguistic factors. Moreover, as argued e.g. by Trudgill in his "Sociolinguistic Typology", what is rare and what is common might have well changed during the last millenia due to the changes in socioecological settings. Therefore I would rather say that both dominant and rare patterns are exlananda on their own right, and that sometimes it might be instructive to forget about frequencies of certain patterns in language samples so that these frequencies don't bias us.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director,
> France-Berkeley Fund
> Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160126/feea0138/attachment.htm>