Introduction: Linguistic universals and language change

ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 2008

Oxford Handbooks Online, 2010

Lingua, 2010

The Linguistic Review, 2000

This article offers a general discussion of the concept of universals in linguistics (and in general), spelling out different ways of understanding claims to universality and connecting such claims to other (often familiar) related distinctions, terminology and approaches such as competence and performance or I-language and E-language, evolutionary explanations, deep and surface universals, rationalism and empiricism or nature and nurture, realism and nominalism, parametric variation and tendencies, formal and functional approaches, properties or explanations, historical explanations, modularity and structural analogy, so-called meta patterns and minimalism.

We consider here two potential arguments for Universal Grammar other than that based on poverty of the stimulus. One stems from the limited number of notions that are grammatically encoded in the languages of the world. The other rests on the fact that of all mathematically possible orders of constituents only a subset is actually attested. Neither limitation appears to follow naturally from cognitive, historical, cultural, processing, or other factors; which makes it plausible to think of them as forced upon us by Universal Grammar, perhaps as a consequence of how it crystallized at some distant point of the evolution of our species.

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2008

This paper compares the generative principles-and-parameters approach to explaining syntactic universals to the functional-typological approach and also discusses the intermediate approach of Optimality Theory. It identifies some fundamental differences between generative parametric explanations and functional explanations. Most importantly, generative explanations assume that cross-linguistic generalizations are due to the innate Universal Grammar, whereas functional explanations assume that language structure can be influenced by regularities of language use through language change. Despite these differences, both approaches to cross-linguistic similarities and differences seem to be guided by a similar vision: That the superficial structural diversity of languages can be reduced to a few basic patterns once one digs below the surface (macroparameters or holistic types). Unfortunately, the evidence for such reductionist constructs has never been very good, so more recently both generativists and functionalists have shifted their interests away from these ambitious goals. However, I argue that there is one type of cross-linguistic generalization for which there is very good empirical evidence: intra-domain universals relating to prominence scales, most of which are straightforwardly explained functionally in terms of processing difficulty.

EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE …, 2000

The con cern with word classes, parts ofspeech, or, as they are referred to in this paper, syntactic categories, dates back to antiquity-for better and for worse. For better, since in lingui stics, as in any other disc ipline, one sees further when stand ing on the shoulders of giants. But for worse, ifit is the case that the giants themselves are standing in the wrong place. Or, in the case at hand , in the wrong continent. My own interest in syntactic categories der ives from ongoing attem pts to obtain a better understanding of the major syntactic patterns of some languages whose syntactic structures appear to be very different from those of the classical languages of antiqu ity, and the well-known and well-stud ied languages of Europe. Increasing ly, these effo rts suggest that contemporary theories and frameworks do not provide the appropriate tools for a satisfactory description of such "exotic" language s. In general, ava ilable theories are of European origin, reflecting the peculiar properties of the particular European languages fam iliar to the ir progenito rs. Often, their application to languages spoken in other parts of the world is an exercise in Eurocentricity, involving the unwarranted impos ition of categories and structures that are simply irrelevant. ' In the past, grammar book s of English informed us that English nouns have six cases, which was what prompted Alice, in her adventures in Wonderland , to muse: " A mouse-ofa mouse-to a mouse-a mouse-O mouse!".l Then it was Latin grammar that was being imposed on Engli sh; now it is English grammar that is being imposed on the rest of the world' s languages, through theories based largely on English data, constructed for the most part by English-speaking lingu ists, and d isseminated almost invariably in the world language of science English. As an illustrat ion, consider the following garden-variety sentence in Tagalog: (1) Manok ang kumakain. chicken TOP PROGR-ACT.TOP.REAL-eat ' The ch icken is eating. '

We consider here two potential arguments for Universal Grammar other than that based on poverty of the stimulus. One stems from the limited number of notions that are grammatically encoded in the languages of the world. The other rests on the fact that of all mathematically possible orders of constituents only a subset is actually attested. Neither limitation appears to follow naturally from cognitive, historical, cultural, processing, or other factors; which makes it plausible to think of them as forced upon us by Universal Grammar, perhaps as a consequence of how it crystallized at some distant point of the evolution of our species.

There are plenty of theories that attempt to address a number of issues on first language acquisition. However, only one has dominated language acquisition research for decades and set the direction in every respect, namely, the Universal Grammar theory. It has become the most widely used linguistic theory, which has influenced the research not only on the first language acquisition but also on second language acquisition and linguistics in general. And yet we have little or rather no straightforward evidence whatsoever and, strictly speaking, it remains a hypothesis, which is difficult to cope with. Moreover, its nature is more than questionable in many respects. The aim of this paper is to tackle the controversial nature of first language acquisition that has puzzled and will puzzle many of us for a long time. The paper is laid out in the following way. First, I will provide a brief overview of the Universal Grammar theory, its main principles and assumptions. Second, I will try to outline the major proposition that drives such a theory, which will eventually come under closer scrutiny. Furthermore, I will try to provide my own insights and shed some light on the differences between first language acquisition and second language acquisition that are also crucial for the generative grammar theory. In the end, I will try to draw some conclusions and queries for further discussions. Please note that given the space limitations of this paper I will be necessarily selective and brief.

De Gruyter eBooks, 2014

Lingua, 2010

Since the publication of Noam Chomsky's field founding Syntactic Structures in 1957, generative grammarians have been formulating and studying the grammars of particular languages to extract from them what is general across languages. The idea is that properties which all languages have will give us some insight into the nature of mind. A widely acknowledged problem to which this work has led is how to reconcile the goal of generalization with language specific phenomena and the cross language variation they induce. Good science requires that cross linguistically valid generalizations be based on accurate, precise and thorough descriptions of particular languages. But such work on any given language increasingly leads us to describe language specific phenomena: irregular verbs, exceptions to paradigms, lexically conditioned rules, etc. So this work and cross language generalization seem to pull in opposite directions. Here we propose an approach in which these two forces are reconciled. Our solution, presented in greater depth in Bare Grammar , is built on the notion of linguistic invariant. On our approach different languages do have non-trivially different grammars: their grammatical categories are defined internal to the language and may fail to be comparable to ones used for other languages. Their rules, ways of building complex expressions from simpler ones, may also fail to be isomorphic across languages. So languages differ. Nonetheless certain properties and relations may be invariant in all natural language grammars, as we will see below. And it is to these linguistic invariants that we should look for properties of mind. Our approach contrasts with that of the most widely adopted linguistic theories, where the dominant idea is that there is only one grammar, the grammars of particular languages being, somehow, special cases. This has led to a mode of description in which grammars of particular languages are given in a notationally uniform way: the grammatical categories of all languages are drawn from a fixed universal set, 1 as are the rules characterizing complex expressions in terms of their components. It has also led to the postulation of a level of unobservable structure ("LF", suggesting

Mouton de Gruyter, 2011

The volume explores the relationship between linguistic universals and language variation. Its contributions identify the recurrent patterns and principles behind the complex spectrum of observable variation. The volume bridges the gap between cross-linguistic variation, regional variation, diachronic variation, contact-induced variation as well as socially conditioned variation. Moreover, it addresses fundamental methodological and theoretical issues of variation research. The volume brings together internationally renowned specialists of their fields while, at the same time, offering a platform for gifted and highly talented young researchers. The authors come from different theoretical backgrounds and through their work illustrate a rich array of scientific methods. All authors share a strong belief in empirically founded theoretical work. The contributions span a high number of languages and dialects from many parts of the world. They are extremely broad in their empirical coverage addressing an impressive selection of grammatical domains.

Studies in Language, 1991