Jan Rijkhoff
Past positions (since PhD):
2021-... Emeritus, Dept. of Linguistics, Aarhus University (Denmark)
1999-2021 Associate Professor, Linguistics, Aarhus University (Denmark)
1997-1999 Visiting scholar, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin (USA)
1996-1997 Senior Researcher of LOT, the National Dutch Graduate School of Linguistics, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam.
1995-1996 Humboldt Research Fellow, Universität Konstanz (Germany).
1992-1994 Researcher Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO); Senior Researcher of the National Dutch Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT), Dept. of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam.
1992 PhD University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From 1990 to 1994 I was a core member of the EuroTyp project (funded by the European Science Foundation) and in 1995 I held a fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung at the University of Konstanz (Germany). Before coming to the University of Aarhus (Denmark), I was a visiting scholar at the University of Texas at Austin (1997–1999). I hold a BA in Dutch language and literature from the Free University Amsterdam (VU) and an MA and a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Amsterdam (UvA).
My main areas of research are linguistic typology, parts-of-speech, lexical semantics (especially nominal aspect and Seinsart) and grammatical theory, in particular semantic and morpho–syntactic parallels between the NP and the sentence within the theoretical framework of Simon C. Dik’s Functional Grammar (Dik 1997) and its successor Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008).
I have authored or co-authored papers in these areas for Journal of Linguistics, Journal of Semantics, Linguistics, Studies in Language, Linguistic Typology, Functions of Language, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Italian Journal of Linguistics (Rivista di Linguistica), Language and Linguistics Compass, Belgian Journal of Linguistics and contributed to various anthologies, handbooks etc., such as Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (Vogel & Comrie eds. 2000), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space (M. de los Ángeles Gómez González et al. eds. 2014), International Handbook of Typology (Haspelmath et al. eds. 2001), The Expression of Possession (McGregor ed. 2009), Rethinking Universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory (Wohlgemuth & Cysouw eds. 2010), Handbook of Mereology (H. Burkhardt, J. Seibt & G. Imaguire eds. 2017), Elsevier’s International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition, 2015), the Oxford Handbook of Word Classes (Eva van Lier ed. 2023) and the Oxford Handbook of Determiners (Martina Wiltschko & Solveiga Armoskaite eds. – to appear).
My book The Noun Phrase (Oxford University Press 2002Hb/2004Pb) investigates NPs in a representative sample of the world’s languages and proposes a four-layered, semantic model to describe their underlying structure in any language. It examines the semantic and morpho-syntactic properties of the constituents of NPs, and in doing so it shows that the NP word order patterns of any language can be derived from three universal ordering principles. On this topic, see also Rijkhoff 2024, 'Nouns and Iconicity of Distance: when syntactic proximity to the noun mirrors semantic closeness', in Laure Gardelle et al. (eds.), Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, 295-349. London: Palgrave Macmillan. A five-layered meaning-function based NP structure was proposed in an anthology I edited with Daniel García Velasco (Universidad de Oviedo, Spain): The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar (2006 – Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
My current research is concerned with categories, modification, the parts-of-speech hierarchy, the semantics of flexible word classes, the relation between form and function, and various aspects of NPs in Functional Discourse Grammar. My most recent book publication (2013) is an anthology entitled Flexible Word Classes (co-editor: Eva van Lier) for Oxford University Press.
Address: URL: https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/linjr%40cc.au.dk
2021-... Emeritus, Dept. of Linguistics, Aarhus University (Denmark)
1999-2021 Associate Professor, Linguistics, Aarhus University (Denmark)
1997-1999 Visiting scholar, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin (USA)
1996-1997 Senior Researcher of LOT, the National Dutch Graduate School of Linguistics, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam.
1995-1996 Humboldt Research Fellow, Universität Konstanz (Germany).
1992-1994 Researcher Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO); Senior Researcher of the National Dutch Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT), Dept. of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam.
1992 PhD University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From 1990 to 1994 I was a core member of the EuroTyp project (funded by the European Science Foundation) and in 1995 I held a fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung at the University of Konstanz (Germany). Before coming to the University of Aarhus (Denmark), I was a visiting scholar at the University of Texas at Austin (1997–1999). I hold a BA in Dutch language and literature from the Free University Amsterdam (VU) and an MA and a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Amsterdam (UvA).
My main areas of research are linguistic typology, parts-of-speech, lexical semantics (especially nominal aspect and Seinsart) and grammatical theory, in particular semantic and morpho–syntactic parallels between the NP and the sentence within the theoretical framework of Simon C. Dik’s Functional Grammar (Dik 1997) and its successor Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008).
I have authored or co-authored papers in these areas for Journal of Linguistics, Journal of Semantics, Linguistics, Studies in Language, Linguistic Typology, Functions of Language, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Italian Journal of Linguistics (Rivista di Linguistica), Language and Linguistics Compass, Belgian Journal of Linguistics and contributed to various anthologies, handbooks etc., such as Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (Vogel & Comrie eds. 2000), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space (M. de los Ángeles Gómez González et al. eds. 2014), International Handbook of Typology (Haspelmath et al. eds. 2001), The Expression of Possession (McGregor ed. 2009), Rethinking Universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory (Wohlgemuth & Cysouw eds. 2010), Handbook of Mereology (H. Burkhardt, J. Seibt & G. Imaguire eds. 2017), Elsevier’s International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition, 2015), the Oxford Handbook of Word Classes (Eva van Lier ed. 2023) and the Oxford Handbook of Determiners (Martina Wiltschko & Solveiga Armoskaite eds. – to appear).
My book The Noun Phrase (Oxford University Press 2002Hb/2004Pb) investigates NPs in a representative sample of the world’s languages and proposes a four-layered, semantic model to describe their underlying structure in any language. It examines the semantic and morpho-syntactic properties of the constituents of NPs, and in doing so it shows that the NP word order patterns of any language can be derived from three universal ordering principles. On this topic, see also Rijkhoff 2024, 'Nouns and Iconicity of Distance: when syntactic proximity to the noun mirrors semantic closeness', in Laure Gardelle et al. (eds.), Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, 295-349. London: Palgrave Macmillan. A five-layered meaning-function based NP structure was proposed in an anthology I edited with Daniel García Velasco (Universidad de Oviedo, Spain): The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar (2006 – Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
My current research is concerned with categories, modification, the parts-of-speech hierarchy, the semantics of flexible word classes, the relation between form and function, and various aspects of NPs in Functional Discourse Grammar. My most recent book publication (2013) is an anthology entitled Flexible Word Classes (co-editor: Eva van Lier) for Oxford University Press.
Address: URL: https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/linjr%40cc.au.dk
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Jan Rijkhoff
Abstract
This contribution examines semantico-cognitive aspects of the spatio-temporal distance between the noun and other constituents, both inside and outside the noun phrase. This paper argues that certain syntactic phenomena, namely CONSTITUENCY, a subset of the GREENBERGIAN WORD ORDER CORRELATIONS, and SCOPING, i.e., placement of adnominal modifiers according to their scopal relations, can be attributed to diachronic developments driven by cognitive processes where speakers attempt to place together what belongs together semantically (‘ICONICITY OF DISTANCE’). The synchronic result of these historical processes was already captured by Behaghel’s first law (1932: 4): ‘The principal law is this: that what belongs together mentally is also placed close together’ (Das oberste Gesetz ist dieses, daß das geistig eng Zusammengehörige auch eng zusammengestellt wird).
Three more specific ordering principles can be formulated on the basis of Behaghel’s first law: (i) the PRINCIPLE OF DOMAIN INTEGRITY, which can ultimately lead to the formation of hierarchically organized syntactic units (‘constituents’), (ii) the PRINCIPLE OF HEAD PROXIMITY, which may explain certain Greenbergian word order correlations, and (iii) the PRINCIPLE OF SCOPE, which accounts for global ordering tendencies among adnominal modifiers in hierarchically structured noun phrases. It will be argued that these ordering principles are formal manifestations of a single cognitive, semantico-functional motivation or ‘diachronic force’ which is deemed to facilitate language processing: ICONICITY OF DISTANCE, where “syntactic proximity mirrors semantic closeness” (Dyer 2018: 55). This type of iconicity is now widely recognized as a universal principle underlying language structure (Schultze-Berndt 2022). Notice, finally, that for a convincing presentation of the effects of three general ordering principles mentioned above (each of which crucially involves nouns), it will be necessary to go beyond the noun, and also take into account aspects of the syntactic organization of noun phrases and clauses.
This chapter offers an overview of members of the word class Noun from a typologically informed, cross-linguistic perspective (see Part II of this volume for other approaches to word classes). It is sometimes assumed that a distinct lexical category Noun is attested in every natural human language (Sapir 1921: 119; Whaley 1997: 32; Croft 2003: 183; Chung 2012), but this appears not to be the case. It has been argued, for example, that nouns cannot be distinguished syntactically from other major word classes like verbs or adjectives in the Polynesian languages Samoan and Tongan (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 73; Broschart 1997; see also e.g. Himmelmann 2005: 128). Furthermore, it has been noted that reference to a concrete object in Oneida and other indigenous North American languages commonly involves the use of verbal forms or constructions (Michelson 1990: 76; Mithun 1999: 60-61, 82; Abbott 2000: 48).
The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows. Section 20.2 is concerned with the status of the word class Noun as a cross-linguistic lexical category. Section 20.3 presents a cross-linguistic classification of the nominal lexemes that are central in this chapter: nouns that are used to talk about a spatial object in the external world, also known as ‘concrete nouns’ or ‘first order nouns.’ Section 20.4 is concerned with lexemes that do not fit easily in the classification of nominal subcategories presented in section 20.3. Section 20.5 offers a brief overview of certain (other) semantic, morphological, phonological, or cognitive properties of nouns and the chapter ends with a conclusion (section 20.6).
Three more specific ordering principles can be formulated on the basis of Behaghel’s first law: (i) the PRINCIPLE OF DOMAIN INTEGRITY, which can ultimately lead to the formation of hierarchically organized syntactic units (‘constituents’), (ii) the PRINCIPLE OF HEAD PROXIMITY, which may explain certain Greenbergian word order correlations, and (iii) the PRINCIPLE OF SCOPE, which accounts for global ordering tendencies among adnominal modifiers in hierarchically structured noun phrases. It will be argued that these ordering principles are formal manifestations of a single cognitive, semantico-functional motivation or ‘diachronic force’ which is deemed to facilitate language processing: ICONICITY OF DISTANCE, where “syntactic proximity mirrors semantic closeness” (Dyer 2018: 55). This type of iconicity is now widely recognized as a universal principle underlying language structure (Schultze-Berndt 2022). Notice, finally, that for a convincing presentation of the effects of three general ordering principles mentioned above (each of which crucially involves nouns), it will be necessary to go beyond the noun, and also take into account aspects of the syntactic organization of noun phrases and clauses.
Before we deal with various categories of noun modifiers, however, we shall devote some attention to the modified constituent, i.e. (head) noun, and to the internal structure of the noun phrase, insofar as this relates to matters of adnominal modification.
Abstract
This contribution examines semantico-cognitive aspects of the spatio-temporal distance between the noun and other constituents, both inside and outside the noun phrase. This paper argues that certain syntactic phenomena, namely CONSTITUENCY, a subset of the GREENBERGIAN WORD ORDER CORRELATIONS, and SCOPING, i.e., placement of adnominal modifiers according to their scopal relations, can be attributed to diachronic developments driven by cognitive processes where speakers attempt to place together what belongs together semantically (‘ICONICITY OF DISTANCE’). The synchronic result of these historical processes was already captured by Behaghel’s first law (1932: 4): ‘The principal law is this: that what belongs together mentally is also placed close together’ (Das oberste Gesetz ist dieses, daß das geistig eng Zusammengehörige auch eng zusammengestellt wird).
Three more specific ordering principles can be formulated on the basis of Behaghel’s first law: (i) the PRINCIPLE OF DOMAIN INTEGRITY, which can ultimately lead to the formation of hierarchically organized syntactic units (‘constituents’), (ii) the PRINCIPLE OF HEAD PROXIMITY, which may explain certain Greenbergian word order correlations, and (iii) the PRINCIPLE OF SCOPE, which accounts for global ordering tendencies among adnominal modifiers in hierarchically structured noun phrases. It will be argued that these ordering principles are formal manifestations of a single cognitive, semantico-functional motivation or ‘diachronic force’ which is deemed to facilitate language processing: ICONICITY OF DISTANCE, where “syntactic proximity mirrors semantic closeness” (Dyer 2018: 55). This type of iconicity is now widely recognized as a universal principle underlying language structure (Schultze-Berndt 2022). Notice, finally, that for a convincing presentation of the effects of three general ordering principles mentioned above (each of which crucially involves nouns), it will be necessary to go beyond the noun, and also take into account aspects of the syntactic organization of noun phrases and clauses.
This chapter offers an overview of members of the word class Noun from a typologically informed, cross-linguistic perspective (see Part II of this volume for other approaches to word classes). It is sometimes assumed that a distinct lexical category Noun is attested in every natural human language (Sapir 1921: 119; Whaley 1997: 32; Croft 2003: 183; Chung 2012), but this appears not to be the case. It has been argued, for example, that nouns cannot be distinguished syntactically from other major word classes like verbs or adjectives in the Polynesian languages Samoan and Tongan (Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 73; Broschart 1997; see also e.g. Himmelmann 2005: 128). Furthermore, it has been noted that reference to a concrete object in Oneida and other indigenous North American languages commonly involves the use of verbal forms or constructions (Michelson 1990: 76; Mithun 1999: 60-61, 82; Abbott 2000: 48).
The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows. Section 20.2 is concerned with the status of the word class Noun as a cross-linguistic lexical category. Section 20.3 presents a cross-linguistic classification of the nominal lexemes that are central in this chapter: nouns that are used to talk about a spatial object in the external world, also known as ‘concrete nouns’ or ‘first order nouns.’ Section 20.4 is concerned with lexemes that do not fit easily in the classification of nominal subcategories presented in section 20.3. Section 20.5 offers a brief overview of certain (other) semantic, morphological, phonological, or cognitive properties of nouns and the chapter ends with a conclusion (section 20.6).
Three more specific ordering principles can be formulated on the basis of Behaghel’s first law: (i) the PRINCIPLE OF DOMAIN INTEGRITY, which can ultimately lead to the formation of hierarchically organized syntactic units (‘constituents’), (ii) the PRINCIPLE OF HEAD PROXIMITY, which may explain certain Greenbergian word order correlations, and (iii) the PRINCIPLE OF SCOPE, which accounts for global ordering tendencies among adnominal modifiers in hierarchically structured noun phrases. It will be argued that these ordering principles are formal manifestations of a single cognitive, semantico-functional motivation or ‘diachronic force’ which is deemed to facilitate language processing: ICONICITY OF DISTANCE, where “syntactic proximity mirrors semantic closeness” (Dyer 2018: 55). This type of iconicity is now widely recognized as a universal principle underlying language structure (Schultze-Berndt 2022). Notice, finally, that for a convincing presentation of the effects of three general ordering principles mentioned above (each of which crucially involves nouns), it will be necessary to go beyond the noun, and also take into account aspects of the syntactic organization of noun phrases and clauses.
Before we deal with various categories of noun modifiers, however, we shall devote some attention to the modified constituent, i.e. (head) noun, and to the internal structure of the noun phrase, insofar as this relates to matters of adnominal modification.
Even after many decades of typological research, the biggest methodological problem still concerns the fundamental question: how can we be sure that we identify and compare the same linguistic form, structure, meaning etc. across languages? Very few linguistic categories, if any, appear to be ‘universal’ in the sense that they are attested in each and every language (Evans and Levinson 2009). The language-specific nature of form-based (structural, morphosyntactic) categories is well known, which is why typologists usually resort to ‘Greenbergian’, meaning-based categories. The use of meaning-based or semantic categories, however, does not necessarily result in the identification of cross-linguistically comparable data either, as was already shown by Greenberg (1966: 88) himself. Whereas formal categories are too narrow in that they do not cover all the structural variants attested across languages, semantic categories can be too wide, including too many structural variants to be useful for e.g. morphosyntactic typology. Furthermore, major typological word order studies after Greenberg (1966) have failed to keep formal and semantic categories apart in their attempt to account for cross-linguistic ordering tendencies (Rijkhoff 2009a).
Recent proposals to employ ‘concepts’ as the basis for cross-linguistic comparison (apparently conflating linguistic/semantic and non-linguistic/cognitive categories) have also met with considerable skepticism (Levinson 2007). Finally, the idea that visual stimuli can produce reliable data for cross-linguistic research is also not unproblematic, as several studies have suggested that there is no single, ‘neutral’ way in which visual input is processed across different languages and cultures (e.g. Lucy 1996, Evans 2009). Furthermore certain ‘ontological categories’ are language-specific (Malt 1995). For example, speakers of Kalam (New Guinea) do not classify the cassowary as a bird, because they believe it has a mythical kinship relation with humans (Bulmer 1967).
In this talk I will discuss the role of functional categories in comparative morphosyntactic research, a type of category that has hardly been taken into account so far. Functional categorization is not directly concerned with the formal or semantic properties of a constituent, but rather with the actual job of a linguistic form or construction in the process of verbal communication (in the tradition of the Prague School). I will argue that (a) functional categorization is methodologically prior to formal and semantic categorization (functional categories include semantic and formal categories) and (b) functional categories give better cross-linguistic ‘coverage’ then formal or semantic categories. Finally it will be shown that functional categories have their own distinct grammatical properties (Rijkhoff 2008, 2009b, forthcoming).
References
Bulmer, Ralph. 1967. Why is the cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea highlands. Man 2-1, 5-25.
Evans, Nicholas. 2009. Trelisses of the mind: how language trains thought. Chapter 8 of Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us, 159-181. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Evans, Nicholas and Stephen Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32-5, 429–92.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, 73-113. Cambridge: MIT.
Keesing, Roger M. 1979. Linguistic knowledge and cultural knowledge: some doubts and speculation. American Anthropologist 81-1, 14-36.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In J. Nuyts and E. Pederson (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, 13-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, John. 1996. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In J.J. Gumpertz and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 37-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malt, Barbara C. 1995. Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology 29, 85-148.
Rijkhoff, Jan, 2008. Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences. In F. Josephson and I. Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, 13-42. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 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 W.B. McGregor (ed.), The Expression of Possession, 51-106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rijkhoff, Jan. forthcoming. Word order.