| { |
| "paper_id": "J75-3002", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:40:52.237147Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "O R D O R D E R And W O R D O R D E R C H A T J G E", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "E V I E W E D B Y J A M E", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "S", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dunn", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Conference on Word Order a n d d o r d Order Change t h a t w a s h e l d at t n e University of C a l i f o r n i a , Santa Barbara, on January 26-27, 1974. The f i r s t e i g h t d e a l with t h e diachk'onic aspect o f word o r d e r , while t h e o t h e r f o u r r e p r e s e n t a synchronic treatment of the subject. In t h e preface the e d i t o r acknowledges t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Joseph Greenberg on these proceedings. B i s 1961 p a p e r , Some universals o f grammar w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r d e r o f meaningful elements' , i s seen as ' t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t * f o r mos't o f t h e papers i n this volume. The p a p e r s i n this c o l l e c t i o n appeal t o a g r e a t d i v e r s i t y o f i n t e r e s t s r sign language, languages o f the Niger-Congo group, Chinese, Indo-European, drift, d i s c o u r s e grammar, rnetatheory, the e v a l u a t i o n metric , and, of c o u r s e , language typology. Obviously, t h e i r common purpose i s t o move t o w a r d a c l e a r e r exp l a n a t i o n o f the causal relationships between the surface constituents of a sentence b o t h synch~onicdlly and d i a c h r o n i c a l l y .", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J75-3002", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Conference on Word Order a n d d o r d Order Change t h a t w a s h e l d at t n e University of C a l i f o r n i a , Santa Barbara, on January 26-27, 1974. The f i r s t e i g h t d e a l with t h e diachk'onic aspect o f word o r d e r , while t h e o t h e r f o u r r e p r e s e n t a synchronic treatment of the subject. In t h e preface the e d i t o r acknowledges t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Joseph Greenberg on these proceedings. B i s 1961 p a p e r , Some universals o f grammar w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r d e r o f meaningful elements' , i s seen as ' t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t * f o r mos't o f t h e papers i n this volume. The p a p e r s i n this c o l l e c t i o n appeal t o a g r e a t d i v e r s i t y o f i n t e r e s t s r sign language, languages o f the Niger-Congo group, Chinese, Indo-European, drift, d i s c o u r s e grammar, rnetatheory, the e v a l u a t i o n metric , and, of c o u r s e , language typology. Obviously, t h e i r common purpose i s t o move t o w a r d a c l e a r e r exp l a n a t i o n o f the causal relationships between the surface constituents of a sentence b o t h synch~onicdlly and d i a c h r o n i c a l l y .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "But many o f the papers actually share more than t h e commom denomi n a t o r of interest i n here may be instances when the preposed form", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "is found] i n which t h e r e i s nothing t o show that it was ever otherwise* (38).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The autherb proceeds n e x t t o considering . the factors i n - ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "v o l v", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "' S e r i a l . verbs and syntactic cfiange r Niger-Congo' , by T a l m y . Givon argues that a shift from s e r i a l i z a t i o n must be gradu- (30'7-3 3 ) . ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 148, |
| "end": 155, |
| "text": "(30'7-3", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "O n the e x p l a n a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the S a n t a Barbara conference . Greenberg's work, t h e y w r i t e , i n d i c a t e s two important modes o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n (Lehmann and iMalkie1 1968 8 138) We are encouraged by Greenberg's u s e of q u a n t i t a t i v e methods and his a b i l i t y t o 5 s o l a t e s i -g n i f i c a n t trends i n s t r u c t u r e . Austin: U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas P r e s s .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 91, |
| "end": 102, |
| "text": "Greenberg's", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 197, |
| "end": 230, |
| "text": "(Lehmann and iMalkie1 1968 8 138)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "11.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "word o r d e r . At s e v e r a l p o i n t s where o t h e r mutual interests overlap, t h e d i s c u s s i o n s assume t h e n a t u r e o f a dialog ( o r , more o f t e n , a d e b a t e ) , and t h e r e a d e r f i n d s t r a n s it i o n from paper t o p a p e r relatively smooth.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "shall withhold further comment on t h e m e r i t s o f t h i s book a s a whole u n t i l the conclusion o f this review. T o h e l p t h e reade r make h i s own e v a l u a t i o n and t o g u i d e him t o t o p i c s o f s p e c i a l interest I will p r e s e n t a summary o f some o f t h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n t s of each p a p e r (with a p o l o g i e s t o each a u t h o r f o r any u n i n t e n t i o na l misrepresentation) .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "text": "o r d e r change i n American Sign Languageg, by Susan F i s c h e r ( 1 -2 5 ) . I n American Sign Language (AsL) today the b a s i c word o r d e r i s S V O . Jyst one hundred years ago i t e x h i b i t e d a predominantly SOY word o r d e r . F i s c h e r illust r a t e s this w i t h two texts relating to the story of the Prodigal (1871) Days few a f t e r , son younger money all t a k e , country f a r go ... (1970'~ s ) Later-on second-of-two young son d e c i d e , g a t h e r , p a c k , leave home, gone. In ASL it is still possible, either in the case of a few idioms, i n t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , o r when the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a sentence would be unambiguous ( e . g. , the boy l i k e s i c e cream9), r e g a r dl e s s of the o r d e r c o n s t r a i n t s on base forms, t o find S Q V -even OVSarrangements . The p r e s s u r e that caused t h e s h i f t from SOV t o S V O F i s c h e r a t t r i b u t e s t o f a c t o r s o f p r e s t i g e and contact w i t h English.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": "some c r i t i c s r e g a r d sign language as a second-class language. Recognition of * h i s sCa%u'. supposedly l e a d $ ('in some vame way) t o an i m i t a t i o n o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f t h e dominant E n g l i s h language. More p e r s u a s i v e l y i t i s argued that deaf c h i l d r e n learning t o sign r e c e i v e a mixed i n p u t o f ASL and a s i g n e d version of E n g l i s h . P f s c h e r explaTns TRat the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a--NNV-sequence today would be O S V rather than S O V . Hence, in representing a sentence such a s , 'The girl k i c k e d t h e b o y * , the sequence o f g e s t u r e s in t h e c o n t e x t o f a d i s c o u r s e would be (19-20)c boy (here) girl ( h e r e ) she-kick-him right hand ( p a t i e n t ) left hand left k i c k s right from d i r e c t i o n o f location o f g i r l to l o c a t i o n o f boy (1) + ---------( 2 ) d i r e c t i o n o f movement This is the preferred (unmarked, and e v i d e n t l y more efficient) o r d e r , Since sign language is a visual m e d i u m , t h e use o f t h e space around t h e signer i s important i n i n d i c a t i n g g r a m m a r i c a l mqchanisms. This function of space represents a c o u n t e r v a i l i n g f o r c e t o t h e pressure f r o m E n g l i s h word o r d e r p a t t e r n s . F i s c h e r suggests that s i n c e l o c a t i o n 2 s available t o disambiguate t h e grammatical relations, n o n -r e v e r s i b l e subject and o b j e c t sequences may continue to occur i n S G V and O S V a r d e r s ( 2 1 ) . This article gives the reader an immediate view o f the broad spectrum o f t o p i c s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s volume. F i s c h e r l s investigation i s i n t r i g u i n g and very informative. one would 56 only wish for g r e a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n with more data on t h e i n t e r e s ting d i s c u s s i o n of how ASL g o t ( o r i s g e t t i n g ) t o SVO. 2 . 'Dynamic a s p e c t s o f word o r d e r i n t h e numeral classifier1 by Joseph Greenberg (27-45), b e g i n s $y p r e s e n t i n g eight s y n c h r o ni c hypotheses about t h e numeral c l a s s i f i e r c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t have been e x t r a c t e d from one o f h i s e a r l i e r papers (1973). From these synchronic o b s e r v a t i o n s he s u g g e s t s t h r e e d i a c h r o n i c h y p o t h e s e s , b r i e f l y sketched h e r e . F i r s t , t h e classifier phrase i s o r i g i n a l l y a Q u a n t i f i e r -Noun phrase ' w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r s y n t a c t i c u s e * (31). The Quantifier ( Q ) -C l a s s i f i e r (~1 ) array as a favored sequence r e f l e c t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Quantifier f + Noun (N) r e l a t i o n s h i p i n n o n -c l a s s i f i e r languages. Second, the o r d e r o f the N i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c l a s s i f i e r phrase i s o f t e n i n t h e p r o c e s s o f undergoing a s h i f t . The Q *.-+ C 1 sequence remains relatively f i x e d . T h i r d , it i s more likely t h a t i n such c a s e s t h e e a r l i e r o r d e r i s N -(Q +.+ Cl,) r a t h e r than (Q e+ C1) -N. The r e s t o f t h e a r t i c l e i s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f evidence t h a t t e s t s the v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e hypotheses. I n Greenberg's wbrds , * the most cogent [evidence comes f r o m ] d i r e c t historical documentation' (31). Evidence f o r t h e shift from posposed t o preposed c l a s s i f i e r i s adducdd from t h e h i s t o r y a f s e v e r a l languages, i n c l u d i n g Chinese, K h m e r , and Burmese. G i l y a k shows t h e same s h i f t a c r o s s p r e s e n t g e n e r a t i o n s . Greenberg observes that w h i l e in phonology t h e r e is independent evidence concerning the relative p l a u s i b i l i t y of h i s t o~i c a l changes, ' i t i s p r e c i s e l y t h e plausibility o f [ t h e hypotheses] which i s a t i s s u e * ( 3 6 ) . vThere are. . . cases. . . in which t h e evidence p o i n t s t o a h i s t o r i c a l s h i f t from postposed t o preposed p o s i t i o n and counterevidence. o ow ever] i t i s n o t claimed t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n always a r i s e s i n th% p o s tposi-tive form.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "d in the synchronic favoring o f the postponed c l a s s i f i e r c o n s t m c ti o n such t h a t e v e n c o n s i s t e n t SOV languages with preposed nominal modifiers, such as Japanese, have postposed o r d e r as usual o r exclusive' ( 3 8 ) . In investigating the occurrence o f variant orders Greenberg suggests looking f o r differences i n function. Illustrating this p o i n t with examples f r o m Standard Malay, Palaung, and Hungarian he shows t h a t some quantifying expressionr; m a y be typed as prenominal, w h i l e o t h e r s are adverbi a l in nature. In viewing the classifier expression as an o r i g i n a l quantifying phrase t h g t 'serves as comment t o the head noun functioning as t o p i c 8 (41), Greenberg proposes that i n these i n s t a n c e s 'the use o f a classifier,,,can be viewed as a device which avoids the bare p r e d i c a t i o n o f numerals which i s disfavored i n many languages* (41). T h i s would seem t o suggest t h a t t h e r e i s a comparison here t o some generative accounts o f t h e d e r i v a t i o n of the adjective phrase 8 1) p r e d i c a t i o n , 2 ) r e l a t i v e clause, 3) a d j e c t i v e follows noun, 4) a d j e c t i v e precedes noun ( 4 1 ) . Greenberg does n o t c l a i m t h a t t h i s s h o u l d be taken as the model f o r a d i a c h r o n i c Gequence.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "text": "Tne a i m o f this paper is t o s t u d y two d i a c h r o n i c processes1 1) t h e demise of S O V s y n t a x and its assoc i a t e d s y n t a c t i c t y p o l o g i e s i n N i g e r -C~n g o , one o f b h i c h i s a s p e c i f i c t y p e o f verb serialization; 2 ) a p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g two mutually l i n k e d changes t h a t combine t o a f f e c t t h e l e x i c os y n t a c t i c typology of t h e language as follows: [a] * t h e l e x i c a l r e -a n a l y s i s ( o r , * g~a m m a t i c i z a t i o n~ ) o f verbs as p r e p o s i t k o n a l 'case markers and [b] t h e c o r r e l a t e d change from a s e r i a l i z i n g t o a n o n -s e r i a l i z i n g VP typology* (49). Givon presents evidence from t h e Mande, d e s t A t l a n t i c , ( V o l t a i c ) Gur, Benue-Kwa, and Bantu groups t o r e c o n s t r u c t P r o t o -Niger-Congo as an S O V language, ( s e c t i o n 2 ) . I n t h e s e c t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e a u t h o r d i s c u s s e s verb s e r i a l i z a t i o n (found mostly i n t h e Benue-Kwa group) which he a s s e r t s is one o f t h e m a b r t y p o l o g i e s that r e s u l t e d from t h e shift away from SOV syntax. Givon n o t e s t h a t t h e syncnrqnic analysis o f serial verb cons t r u c t i s n s has been t h e s u b j e c t of a l o n g -d e b f % t e over t h e following issues, are t h e s e e n t i t i e s v e r b s or. p r e p o s i t i o n s : i f v e r b s , do they represent a c o o r d i n a t e o r bii3ordinate structure; does s e r i a l i z a t i o n arise d i a c h r o n i c a l l y from c o n j u n c t i o n o r subordination? I n s e c t i o n 4 Givon p r e s e n t s arguments t o show t h a t t h e v e r b -s e r i a l i z i n g languages of Benue-Kwa may be undergoing a 59 g r a d u a l s y n t a c t i c -l e x i c a l change, from S V O v e r b -s e r i a l i a j q~: synt a x t o w a r d s a non-sarializing verb phrase ir1 which e r s t w h ' i l e verbs ares re-analxzed as p r e p o s i t i o n s ' ( 8 0 ) , o r postpositions i n I j o . H i s c r i t e r i a f o r h e r e a n a l y s i s are semantic ( t h e r e i s a depletion o f some semantic mpterial out o f the erstwhile verb ( 8 2 3 ) ; m o m h o l o g i c a l (there i(s a loss of ability to t a k e n o r m a l verb a f f i x e s (84) ) , an8 syntactic (after semantic reanalysis as a preposition o r a con junction a verb q u i t e o f t e n remains at its o r i g i n a l s e r i a l -v e r b position (84) ) .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "text": "l~ t h e morphological and s y n t a c t i c b e h a v i o r i s Likely to l a g behind the more p r o g r e s s i v e semantic re-analysis1 ( 8 6 ) . Another type o f argument Givon characterizes as ' r a t h e r futilet (86) i s one undertaken by Hynan (1971b) and o t h e r s f o r t h e c o o r d i n a t e d i a c h r o n i c origin o f serial v e r b s . To Givon * it i s quite c l e a r that languages do proceed to reanalyze ze-,x.$icdLly the relationship between t w o e r s t w h i l e c o o r d i n a t e ( * c o n s e c u t i u e w ) clauses s o that e v e n t u a l l y a non-coordinate s e m a n t i c s prevailst ( 8 7 ) .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "text": "on he s t a t e s . 'the lexical-semantic r g -a n d l y s i s of verbs i n t o prepositions i n a s e r i a l -v e r b c o n s t m c t i o n i s l i k e l y t o create semantically m o r e complex verbs i n dL1 cases.. . and is a l s o likely to i n t r o d u c e some S O V syntax i n t o an e r s twhile SVO-~erializing language. But it i s not likely t o i n t r oduce a c o m~l e t e~ S O V syntax into the languageg ( 8 9 ) . This paper is well w r i t t e n and most l a u d a b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g the reader with an abundance .of W a to illustrate the a u t h o r v s contentions. The paper that follows should be read to s e e Hyman s response t o Givon s claims.4.Ont h e change f r o m SOV t o Sv0.1 evidence from Niger-Congot , by Larry Hyman (113 -147). Hyman, l i k e Givon, f o c u s e s h i s a t t e n t i o n on t h e Niger-Congo family o f languages in an ihvegtigation of rn t h e v a r i o u s f a c t o r s which may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e change f r o m an S O V t o an S V O word o r d e r t (115). H y m a n discusses $he f o l l o w i n g f o u r rn explanations' f o r word o r d e r cKange; 1) contact, 2 ) d i s a m b i g u a t i o n , 3) grammaticalization, and 4) a f t e r t h o u g h t .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "text": "acknowledging t h a t c o n t a c t i s often r e s p o n s i b l e f o r word o r d e r change, H y m a n p r e f e r s t o l e a v e it aside, r e a s o n i n g t h a t a diachronic search f o r l o s t contact languages t o e x p l a i n a change might prove f r u i -t l e s s . On disambiguation as an e x p l a na t i o n Hymw c i t e s Vennemann (1973a) i n which i t i s contended that 'word o r d e r chariges r e s u l t f r o m t h e l e v e l i n g o f morpholo<i c a l case markings, which i n turn are l o s t through phor~01ogica.l change' (116). Vennemannt s model 3s r e j e c t e d because it is n o t readily adaptable to t h e facts o f Niger-Congo, s i n c eProto-NC was n 6 t c h a r a c t e r i z e d by case markings on nouns* ( 1 2 3 ) .Grammaticalization as p r o p o s e d by Givon( this volume) i s a l s o r e j e c t e d (124) However, s i n c e Givdn i s c o r r e c t t d p o i n t out that P r o t o -Bantu d i d n o t s e r i a l i z e verbs (though a n earlier ancestor may very 'yell have i n v o l v e d serial v e r b s ) , t h e grammaticalization o f verbs t o post position^ could n o t have c a u s e d the change o f S O V t o S V O in Bantu--where, ~e c a l l from t h e preceding section, t h e whole t h i n g is presumed t o have s t a r t e d . W e must t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e t h a t g r a r m a t i c d l i z a t i o n plays little .if any r o l e in t h e word o r d e r changes d i s c u s s e d i n t h e first p a r t o f Givon s paper;Hyman concludes that a f t e r t h o u g h t i s the b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n to s u p p o r t the e v~d e n c e from Niger-Congo . , A f t e r t h o u g h t , a c o v e r term f o r a number of d i f f e r e n tthough r e l a t e d phenomeria-' ( 119) , i s t o be u n d e r s t o o d as an a s p e c t o f the ' c o n f l i c t between syntax and pragmatics. T h a t i n , s p e a k e r s , in t h e c o u r s e of using a language sometimes f i n d it necessary to b r e a k t h e syntax and a d d grammatical elements in positions wnere t h e y normally should n o t appear' (119-120). Hyman t a k e s e v i d e n c e from K r u and K p e l l e t o s u p p o r t his claim. H e w r i t e s (135-136) 1 The reason why [afterthought] hits the .sentence first i s because o f t h e k i t u d e o f %he p r o b l e m o f a f t e r t h o b g h t -i . e . ,,. the u n i t s which can s e r v e as a f t e r t h o u g h t s are simply --.l a r g e r in s c o p e , more likely t o be f o r g o t t e n . Thus, i f i f a f t e r t h o u g h t is to l e a d to a rearrangement o f the synt a c t i c units, it will take place h i s t o r i c a l l y f 2 r s t i n t h e change f r o m S O V to-SVO., a n d t h e n in ,the change from Nod-N &nd N-Nod, as w a s seen in t h e t w o se a r a t a syntactic waves p which hit Kwa t e r r i t o r y (section 3.1 . H y m a n d e v o t e s the f o u r t h s e c t i o n o f h i s p a p e r ta a r e p l y to Givdnts treatment of serialization. Givon, he writes, a t t r i b u t e s t h e r i s e o f s e r i a l i z a t i o n to a. response t o t h e l o s s o f case markings on nouns. Citing t h e r e p l a c e m e n t o f a case marker or a prepositi8n expressing i n s * t r u m e n t a l i t y w i t h a v e r b such a6 'to t a k e ' as i n , 'take +,he knife and c u t t h e meat' (138), H y m a n says t h e r e is no disruption of the i n s t r u m e n t a l meaning: This would the'n show English to be a s e r i d L i z i n g lang-age and ' t h e distinction between s e r i a l i z i n g and not s e r i a l i z i n g becomes t r i v i a l , if n o t nonexistent1 (138). F u r t h e r on he a s s e r t s t h a t s e r i a l i z a t i o n does occur i n S O V languages, e. g . , Laku and Japanese. ' I t doesn* t o c c u r in too many A f r i c a n languages, because the o n l y S O V language i n t h e s e r i a l i z a t i o n belt i s I jo-. . And t h e r e i t o c c u r s ' (141) H y m a n l s paper i s v a l u a b l e f o r h i s i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e n o t i o n of a f t e r t h o u g h tvague though i t may be. H i s r e f u t a t i o n o f Givonls position i s n o t as convincing. 5. 'A d i s c u s s i o n o f compound and word o r d e r 1 , by d i n f r e d P. Lehmann (149-162). Lehmann o f f e r s what might be d e s c r i b e d as t h e * k e y n o t e v paper qf t h e conference. d h i l e t h e purpose o f h i s e f T o r t i s t o 'examine t h e p o s i t i o n o f nominal elements of v e r b s 1 (151), ( t h e data comes mainly from S a n s k r i t , and f o c u s e s on Proto-Xndo-European) , t h e r e a d e r i s impressed by t h e h o r t a t o r y r i n g of the p r o s e . I n fact when some of t h e s e n t e n c e s a r e ext r a c t e d from t h e a r t i c l e and d i s p l a y e d in a l i s t (incomplete) as below, t h e y read l i k e maxims. 1. The t i m e has come t o s e t up u n i v e r s a l laws of language development, i f c a u t i o u s l y (151). 2. W e should s t a t e o u r procedures and a%ide by them (151) . W e seek an understanding o f p r a c t i c i n g comparison t o de combining such oornparison w and h i s t o r i c a comparison.. s y n t a c t i c phenomena by ermine u n i v e r s a l l a w s , t h p h i l o l o g i c a l s t u d y (151).", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF9": { |
| "text": "4' I n s t u d i e s concerning u n i v e r s a l s o f language we g e n e r a ll y start from an examination of d a t a and then a s k q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t a . . . I n dealing w i t h such auest'lbns we must examine-the d a t a i n accordance w i t h a model of language, &d i n accordance with s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e s t h a t have been observed regarding l i ' n g u i k t i c s t r q c t u r e s . Noreover, we must r e a l i z e t h a .t languages are h i s t o r i c a l p r o d u c t s (151-152). 5. [~] n y h y p o t h e s i s of syntactic change must be framed i n accordance w i t h a s t r i c t framework ...l%!] he q u e s t i o n which may be t h e most p r e s s i n g i n h i s t o r i c a l l n i g u i s t i c s a t p r e s e n t [ i s ] i d e n t i f y i n g 'the e v e n t s and s t r u c t u r e s r e s u l t i n g when a language underg0.e~ s y n t a c t i c change (154). 6. The p r o c e s s e s o f s y n t a c t i c change, and t h e . i n f l u e n c e s p r~~s e d f o r i't, must [be determined by observing what happens t o languages i n t r a n s i t i o n ( 155) . 7 . When a language i s undergoing s y n t a c t i c change, some o f its characteristics must be m o d i f i e d b e f o r e o t h e r s (155). I would urge t h e reader to turn to this article first because it c a p t u r e s t h e s p i r i t that has a n i m a t e d t h e o t h e r contributors i n t h e i r endeavors, T h i s assessment o f Lehmanngs paper i s n o t intended t o diminish i n t e r e s t i n his w e l l -a r t i c u l a ted f a c t u a l d i s c a s s i o n . T.o t h e c o n t r a r y . But i t i s outstanding i n its general appeal, and must be read f o l t h a t , i f f o r no o t h e r reason. 6 . 'The semantic function o f word o r d e r ! a case s t u d y i n Mandarint, by Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson (163-195). This i s a study o f the semantic f u n c t i o n o f word o r d e r with r e s p e c t t o definiteness in Mandarin Chinese. The a u t h o r s p r e s e n t evidence t o demonstrate that d e f i n i t e nouns, w h e t h e r s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t , tend t o be placed b e f o r e t h e verb, whereas i n d e f i n i t e nouns tend t o follow t h e verb. [!J!hey contend that] t h i s f u n c t i o n o f word o r d e r was developed in t h e past millenium and t h a t , as a r e l a t i v e l y new grammatical d e v i c e , it is i n conflict with t h e shift from S V O t o SOVa diaeh'ronic p r e e -s s presently in action. he^ claim t h a t t h e i r analysis] w i l l i n d i c a t e t h a t this c o n f l i c t i s most l i k e l y t o be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f t h e shift t o SOV word o r d e r ' (165-166). The authors assert that t h e i r evidence suggests t h e f o l l o wing generalizations and a s s o c i a t e d ' refinements' o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s r Tendency A Nouns p r e c e d i n g the v e r b t e q d to be definite, w h i l e those f o l l o w i n g the verb tend t o be i n d e f i n i t e ( 6 7 0 ) . Refinement 1 The noun i n p o s t v e r b a l p o s i t i o n will be interpreted as i n d e f i n i t e unless i t i s m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y G r i n h e r e n t l y o r n o n -d a p h o r i c d l l y d e f i n i t e ( 173) . Refinement 2 A s e n t e n c e -i n i t i d noun ,nust be i n t e r p r e t e d a s d e f i n i t e , and may n o % be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d e f i n i t e even if it is preceded by the numeral 'onet (177). Refinement 2 The noun f o l l o w i n g bei [an agent marker ] , a l t h o u g h p r ev e r b a l , i s immune t o Tendency A (179). Refinement 4 Nouns in prepositional p h r a s e s are i m m u n e t o Tendency A ( 1 8 2 ) Mandarin i s presently undergoing a word o r d e r s h i f t from SVo t o S O V (185) . Evidence f o r t h e hypothesis stated as Tendency B i s : 1 ) th\"e ba-c o n s t r u c t i o n that allows S O V word o r d e r i s becoming more extensive ( 1 8 7 -1 8 8 ) : 2 ) i n m o d e r n Mandarin the demonstrat i v e article, n e i -' t h a t t and t h e numeral, -' o n e ' may s e r v e as d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e g r t i c l e s r e s p e c t i v e l y i n s u b o r d i n a t e clauses, i n d i c a t i n g a g r a d u a l t r e n d (188) . This p a p e r i s exemplary i n its orderly presentation and s t r o n g e m p i r i c a l orientation. I t represents a c o n t i n u a t , i o n o f similar studies u n d e r t a k e n by Li and Thompson.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF10": { |
| "text": "f a c t o r s that affect and e f f e c t word o r d e r t , by Susan S t e e l e (197-268) . S teele c l a i m s t h a t in her survey o f the p o s i t i o n o f grammatical m o d a l elements i n 44 languages s h ehas found them to be 'ordered with r e s p e c t to the other elements of the sentence i n a regular fashionv(199).She c l a s s k f i e s languages i n t o two t y p e s with r e g p e c t t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f modals. Type A languages, where m o d a l s a r e dependent on the main v e r b , commonly show t h e following word o r d e r s ( 2 Type B languages 'rnodals t e n d t o occur i n t h e s e n t e n t i d second p o s i t i o n ' ( 2 2 1 ) . I n t h i s group modals seem t o h e d e f i n e d solely by their sententia.3-p o s i t i o n . S t e e l e observes t h a t t h e r e a r e two m a j o r t h e o r i e s about grammatical modals. One h o l d s t h a t 'medals are generated i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e i n the p o s i t i o n i n which t h e y occur on t h e s u r f a c e , dominated by t h e c a t e g o r y symbol, ModalB ( 2 2 2 ) . The o t h e r theory d e r i v e s modals as main verbs. S i n c e n e i t h e r theory can completely e x p l a i n t h e p o s i t i o n a l t e n d e n c i e s she d e s c r i b e s , S t e e l e suggests a third a l t e r p a f i v e . She m a i n h i n s that t h e p o s i t i o n o f m o d a l s i n t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e i s dominated by two f a c t o r s r 1. There a r e c e r t a i n unmarked s u r f a c e p o s i t i o n s f o r modal elements. I n v e r b -i n i t i a l languages this i s t h e sentencei n i t i a l p o s i t i o n ; i n \\e*rb-final languages, sentence f i n a l p o s i t i o n ( 2 2 3 ) . 2. The unmarked p o s i t i o n s a r e a c t e d u on by two t e n d e n c i e st h e tendency f o r c e r t a i n elements 7 including, b u t n o t e x c l u s i v e t o , modal :elements) t o be a t t r a c t e d t o the verb and the tendencw f o r these same elements t o be p o s i t i o n e d initially (224).S t e e l e h y p o t h e s i z d s , 'the importance o f t h e s e n t e n c e -i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o a s t r a t e g y that p s y c h o l o g i s t s have c a l l e d \"primacyu [by which] the first element in a s e r i e s is perceived t o be t h e mostimportant' ( 2 3 5 ) .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF11": { |
| "text": "u r t h e r on she s t a t e s t h a t t h e assumed tendency of m o d d s t o s e n t q n t i , a l second p o s i t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e importance o f f i r s t p o s i t i o n . Her c o n j e c t u r e isr 1 ) o f all t h e elements ( t o i c , q e g a t i v e , p a s t t e n c e , q u o t at i v e s , and modal e l e m e n t s f) -that may be a t t r a c t e d by sent e n c e i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , the -a t t r a c t i o n f o r t o p i c i s t h e s t r o r~g e s t ; 2 ) t o p i c may s o l i d i f y i n 4 s e n t e n c e i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , thus f o r c i n a l l o f t h e o t h e r elements t o s e n t e nt i a l second p o s i t i o n 7 2 3 8 -2 3 9 ) . S t e e l e concludes t h a t * the multi-purpose importance of f i r s t p o s i t i o n w i l l f o r c e grammatical elementsand v e r b so u t o f f i r s t p o s i t r o n and t o p i c ( d e v e l o p i n g t o s u b j e c t ) i n (243). S t e e l e l s o c c a s i o n a l mention of p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t r a t e g i e s reminds u s t h a t e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between word o r d e r and cognitive s t r a t e g i e s i s s t i l l t e n t a t i v e b u t would -d o u b t l e s s add c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p l a n a t o r y power t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s made by l i n g u i s t s , An e x p l a q a t i o n of d r i f t 1 , by T h e 0 Vennemann (269-305) b e g i n s w i t h a review of p a s t d i s c u s s i o n s o f d r i f t i n S a p i r ( l 9 2 l ) , F r i e s (1940 j , and Lakoff (1972). S a p i r l s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h r e e ' m a j o r d r i f t s 1 ( l e v e l i n g o f d i s t i n c t i o n between s u b j e c t and o b j e c t case's, tendency t o f i x e d p a s i t i o n i n t h e s e n t e n c e , and the d r i f t toward ' t h e i n v a r i a b l e word? ( 2 7 2 ) ) shows some shortcomings. I t i s a n g l o c e n t r i c , u s e s f e w examples, and a p p e a r s l i r n p r e s s i o n i s t i c l ( 2 7 6 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e s t u d i e s by Lakoff and F r i e s r e p r e s e n t r e g r e s s i o n s from t h e advanced p o s i t i o n taken by S a p i r . O f L a k o f f Vennemann i s p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l for her amazing m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of S a p i r l s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and i n s i g h t f u l o r i g i n a l account o f d r i f t 1 (286) .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF12": { |
| "text": "Greenberg and Lehrnann i n t h e i r numerous p u b l i c a t i o n s s h u n t h e term ' d r i f t 1 b u t Vennemann n o t e s t h a t t h e y i n v e s t i g a t ephenomena c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o i t and have c o n t r i b u t e d much t o i t s e x p l a n a t i o n .In t h e last s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d , 'The u n i v e r s a l i t y o f d r i f t ;natural g e n e r a t i v e grammart Vennernann d i s c u s s e s e x p l a n a t i o n s for i n d i v i d u a l $rifts and t h e l i t e r a t u r e associr'ated with them.His d i s c u s s i o n l e a d s p r i m a r i l y to t h i s c o n c l u s i o n (301) 8S a p i r was moving i n t h e ri-ght direction when he established causal relationships among his individual drifts and viewed phonological change as the ultimate cause of drift. W e a r e now, half a century after Sapirgs exposition of the problem, i n a p o s i t i o n t o make deeper and more comprehensive g e n e r a l i z a t i o n @ about t h e n a t u r e of phonological and s y n t a c t i c change. T h i s enables us t o s a y t h a t g i v e n t h ei n e v i t a b i l i t y o f n e u t r a l i z i n g and r e d u c t i v e phonological change, and given t h e v a r i o u S , o f t e n c o n f l i c % i n g demands of pragmatiks and s e m a n t i c s on grammatical s t r u c t u r e , drift i s i n e s c a p a b l e , and i t s course p r e d i c t a b l e . T h i s a r t i c l e deserves s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n f o r two r e a s o n s . One, drift as a pl-susible linguistic phenomenon has had a 'bad p r e s s ' f o r t o o long. Vennemann s y n t h e s i z e s the. findings of s e v e r a l scholars a c r o s s a broad c h r o n o l o g i c a l spectrum t o j u s t i f y the validity o f the concept o f d r i f t and t o r e l a t e i t t o n o t i o n s o f l i n a i s t i c u n i v e r s a l s . The second reason why this a r t i c l e i s s o commendable i s that i t i s a satisfying remilider of t h e lasting value o f t h e insights o f Edward Sapir.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF13": { |
| "text": "paper i s y e t another example of t h e comprehensive scope o f t h i s c o l l e c t i o n . The a u t h o r u n d e r t a k e s t o p r g s e n t arguments in favor o f an ordered Base and to r e f u t e t h e -claims made by t h e proponents of order-free t h e o r i e s of the base. T h i s a r t i c l ei s important becabse i n Bacn's words, i t 'is p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o hypotheses about u n i v e r s a l grammarv ( 3 0 9 ) .Bach n o t e s i n his i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t because base s t r u c t u r e s are theoret.5.ca.l c o n s t r u c t s t h e y ' c a n n o t be d i r e c t l y observed o r i n t u i t e d ' ( 3 1 0 ) . T d e r e f o r e , t h e h y p o t h e s e s on which t h e s e cons t r u c t s are based must be s c r u t i n i z e d , s i n c e they a r e more a c c e s s i b l e t o e m p i r i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . He then p r o c e d e s t o o u t l i n e d i f f e r e n t t h e o r i e s o f t h e base ( s e c t i o n 2 ) ; t o examine some o f t h e arguments that s u p p o r t t h e claim t h a t base s t r u c t u r e s a r e unordered ( s e c t i o n 3 ) ; and i n t h e last s e c t i o n t o p r e s e n t h i s r e f u t a t i o n of t h e c a s e f o r u n o r d e r e d base s t r u c t u r e s . Although Bachv s e m p i r i c a l evidence i s predominantly (but n o t e x c l u s i v e l y ) from E n g l i s h , t h e f o r c e o f h i s arguments remains s t r o n g . Bachws c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t -the evidence s u g g e s t s t h e r e i s an i n h e r e n t l i n e a r i t y i n language a t all l e v e l s , a c o n d i t i o n which, i f true, would weaken t h e cla5ms o f o r d e r -f r e e t h e o r i e s . Although Bach i n t e g r a t e s some t y p o l o g i c a l evidence t o s u p p o r t his arguments, the d i s c u s s i o n remains mostly ol? a m e t a t h e o r e t i c d l l e v e l , which, o f c o u r s e , s e t s h i s p a p e r apart somewhat from t h e g e n e r a l tone of t h e others. T h i s detachment i s d e s i r a b l e because i t serves t o b r a c k e t t h e s t u d i e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e with a t h e o r y o f grampar a t the most abstract l e v e l .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF14": { |
| "text": "l l o f t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s t o varying degrees r e l a t e t h e i r s t u d i e s t o a t h e o r y bf g e n e r a t i v e g r a m m a r . Because o f the understandable l i m i t a t i d n s imposed by the s u b j e c t m a t t e r o r t h e p r e v i o u s p a p e r s , Bach's paper, as w e l l as t h e three that f o l l o w i t , offsets what might o t h e r w i s e have r e p r e s e n t e d a n o t i c e a b l e imbalance i n t h i s voluae.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF15": { |
| "text": "t i s recommended t h a t Sanders* paper be read i n conjuncticn with Bachl s. Sanders o f f e r s a somewhat n e g a t i v e c r i t i q u e quoted i n p a r t here (401n) I n Bachms Case all t h a t i s shown i s t h a t t h e r e are c e r t a i n f a c t s about c e r t a i n languages that appe-ar t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e hypothesis sf v a r i a b l e o r d e r i n g . It, i s nbt shown t r s e , t h a t must be demonstrated, and n o t merely t h e former, i f one wishes t o support t h e claim t h a t i n v a r i a n t o r d e r t h e o r i e s a r e false o r inadequate.10. 'The p r e s e n t a t i v e movement o r why the i d e a l word o r d e r i s V . S . O . P . ' , by Robert Hetzron (346-388). Hetzron's introductory argument goes as follows-. I n a discourse no sentence i s u t t e r e d i n a vacuum. N o t o n l y a r e t h e preceding discourseand s i t u a t i o n important i n t h e conte'xt of an u t t e r a n c e , b u t a l s o he n o t e s t h a t any given sentence may f i g u r e prominently i n t h e background of subsequent sentences. When a sentence is cons t r u c t e d so t h a t a c e r t a i n component o f i t will be 'given a s t a t u s o f prominence i n short-range memory, s o t h a t i t will dominate t h e immediate sequel t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r u t t e r a n c e ' ( 3 4 7 ) ,the motivation f o r t h i s promotion t o prominence i s c a l l e d the ' p r e s e n t a t i v e f u n c t i o n * . I n the derivat,ion o f a sentence e l ements marked by the presentative f u n c t i o n o f t e n end up i n a s e n t e n c e -f i n a l p o s i t i o n . T h i s 'transfer o f p r e s e n t a t i v e e l ements t o t h e end of t h e sentence1 Hetzron c a l l s t h e ' p r e s e n ta t i v e movementT (348J. Hetzron c o l l e c t s evidence mainly from E n g l i s h , Hungarian, and Amharic t o demonstrate how the p r e s e n t a t i v e movement b r i n g s c e r t a i n elements t o * a s e n t e n c e -f i n a l , o r a t l e a s t t o a l a t e r than u s u d l , p o s i t i o n w ( 3 7 4 ) . H e argues c l e a r l y and p e r s u a s i v e l y i n showing t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f the p r e s e n t a t i v e movement, but l e a v e s t h e r e a d e r u n c e r t a i n about why, as the t i t l e s u g g e s t s , t h e i d e a l word o r d e r is V . S . 0 . P . The a r t i c l e makes an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r i b u t i o n Lo. %his v o lume b e c a u s e the p r e s e n t a t i v e f u n c t i o n b e l o n g s t o d i s c o u r s e grpmmar which o p e r a t e s on somewhat l e s s e x a c t , l e s s s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e s t h a n s e n t e n c e grammar* ( 3 7 6 ) . Hence, when i t comes t o making c l a i m s f o r the u n i v e r s a l s t a t u s o f t h e p r e s e n t a t i v e movement t h e prose becomes e q u a l l y i n e x a c t ; d e can s t a t e that t h e p r e s e n t a t i v e movement i s a u n i v e r s a l tendency p o t e n t i a l l y always p r e s e n t i n the speech s y s t e m o f humans, a p p l y i n g whenever t h e r e i s an o p p o r t u n i t y g ( 3 7 6 ) . H e t z r o n says u n i v e r s a l tendenc i e s p l a y a weighty r o l e i n d i s c o u r s e grammar ( 3 7 6 ) , though he does n o t s a y how. O n t h e r o l e o f the p r e s e n t a t i v e f u n c t i o n i n h i s t o r i c a l change the d i s c u s s i o n becomes even more t e n t a t i v e The p r e s e n t a t i v e . . . s h o w s up in a l l cases where it has been g i v e n a chance t o i n f l u e n c e t h e d i r e c t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l U change. Once i t -h a s 'mahaged t o become part o f *a p a r t i c u l a r grammar, i t $ends t o p e r b q i s t t , w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e erosive, e f b e c t o f l a t e r h i s t o r i c a l developments, as i n Amharic ( S e c t i o n 5 ) I n o t h e r c a s e s i t s u c c e e d s ' i n sneaking i n t h e back-door, as i n c a t a p h o r i c p r e d i c a t i o n s where t h e p r e s e n t a t i v e element h a s %o be pEomoted t o t h e status o f p r e & i c a t e t o a t t a i n the final p o s i t i o n .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF16": { |
| "text": "i o n o f c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r u n i v e r s a l s . ' , by Gerald Sanders (389-436). The purpose of t h i s a r t i c l e i s t o show how 'any s e r i o u s a t t e m p t t o achieve even t h e l o w e s t order of e~p l a n a t i p n [ o f all s i g n i f i c a n t facts and g e n e r a l i z at i o n s about t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f o u r d i s c i p l i n e ] r e q u i r e s t h e assumption o f numerous p r e c i s e and highly r e s t r i c t i v e metacanstraints on natural-Janguage grammar, m e t a -c o n s t r a i n t s which have f a r -r e a c h i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s and i n t e r r e l a t J h o n s with r e s p e c t t o 611 a s p e c t s of phonology and syntax' (405-4-06). Sanders i s particularly c r i t i c a l o f s t a t e m e n t s t y p i c a l l y found i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t he l a b e l s ' g r o s s n u m e r~c a l l y uns p e c i f i e d l i k e l i h o o d a s s e r t i o n s * such as ( 393) r I n d e c l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s with nominal s u b j e c t and o b j e c t , the dominant o r d e r i s a l m o s t always one i n which the s u b j e c t p r e c e d e s t h e o b j e c t . reen en berg 1963 1962 r61) Such s t a t e m e n t s ( h e c i t e s o t h e r l i n g u i s t s as w e l l ) are ' t o o vague and unnecessarily e l a b o r a t e t o be really u s e f u l even as statements of mere d e s c r i p t i o n . They have no pos'sible p r e d i c ti v e o r ex~lanatory uses at a l l * (394). If l i n g u i s t s a r e t o a c t on t h e i r commitment t o hold t o t h e r i g o r o u s s t a n d a r d s imposed by an empirical. s c i e n c e , their m e t a t h e o r e t i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c & p r e r e q u i s i t e s must make i t p o s s i b l e t o establish ' t h e s c i e n t i f i cally indlspensible i m p l i c a t i o n relations t h a t must h o l d be tween ernpiri* hypotheses and factual o b s e r v a t i o n s that would s u f f i c e to confirm o r disconfirm them' (4.28). Sanders s e e s h i s ~b j e c t i v e i n this a r t i c l e i s ' t o exemplify the complexities and r a m i f i c a t i o n s attendant upon any serious attempt to explain c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r i n g i n n a t u r a l language* ( 4 2 9 ) H e develops h i s arguments ' p r i m a~i l y with qespect t o the h i g h l y restrictive theory o f Derivation'dl Ordering.. .and t n e rnexa-constraints that comprise t h i s theory--the p r i n c i p l e s o f Terminal Completeness and Irivariant Orderingt (429). Sanders s p e c i f i c a l l y a e a l s with natural language data concerning ( f o r example) tha o r d e r i n g o f o b l i q u e arguments, adjectives , and nominal m o d i f i e r s . To generate the most general e x p l a n a t i o n s of all the f a c t s about t h e o r d e r i n g of t h e s e elements, t h e a u t h o r develops his c a s e f o r ' t h e grammatical? l a w o f S p e c i f i c i t y Prepositionm Sanders shows that t h e importance o f this ' l a w t l i e s i n t h e fact t h a t it' can a l s o p r e d i c t the non-existence o f o r d e r s t h a t do n o t o c c u r . The A r t i c l e , while u n i q u e l y d e a l i n g w i t h t h e e v a l u a t i o n metric, i n t e r a c t s n i c e l y with t h e o t h e r papers i n t h i s c o l l e c tion. Obviously, it relates t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n p r e s e n t e d by Bach, b u t perhaps i t i s i n s e e i n g what amounts t o a s p e c i f i c response to Lehmannvs exhortations i n this volume for t h e d e t e r m i n a t i f o n of universal laws (1rl) that t h e reader might acquire t h e g r e a te s t s t i m u l a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n . 12. ' VWb-anchoring and verb-movement * , by A r t h u r S chwart z (437-462). I n mapping deep structural representations onto s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e Schwartz Suggests that c o n s t r a i n t s on t r a n sformations be made in terms of mnuc2eus8 and tconstituentt which would make 'no w f e r e n c e t o l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s like N , V , P, e t c D q ( 4 3 9 ) . Schwartz claims that t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between SVO and VSO o r d e r s 1 i B s i n terms o f W-conqtituency i n t h a t t h e n o t i o n YP is peculiar to S V O organization. VSO and S O V systems 'involve a d e c i s i o n about the position of the verb ( p r e d i c a t e , g e n e r a y ) whereas SVO do notq (439-440). Verb-movement o f any k i n d is t a be 'foun8 only in S V O systems. O r , p u t another w a y , 'SVO language-learners do n o t 'hake a d e c i s i o n w about t h e p o s i t i o n of' t h e verb, and so the verb is \"movable\" ; l e a r n e r s o f V-initial and V -f i n a l languages view t h e verb as a f i x e d point and so do n o t \"imaginev i t as movable* ( 4 5 7 ) . How Schwartz c o u l d e v e r knowl e t alone prove all t h i s is beyond m e . The discussion is interesting b u t omits c a r e f u l d e f i n i t i o n of -the presumably important constraints mentioned in the i n t r oduction such as t h e ' U n i t hDPlovement Constraint* and -the ' F i x e d Nucleus Constraintt, r e f e r r i n g t h e reader instead t o t h e writer's other p u b l i c a t i o n s . i ! o r e o v e r , what the a u t h o r means by * (make a) decision' and 'imagine it as movable* (above) is a l s o l e f t unstated. The r e a d e r f e e l s prepared t o a c c e p t Schwartz' s argument3 (examples f r o m several languages are p r o v i d e d ) b u t senses a lack o f focus due perhaps t o the preliminary n a t u r e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g at i o n . Hence, e x a c t l y why the analysis o f German s u b o r d i n a t e clause s t r u c t u r e t h a t shows wir Hans sehis t o be p r e f e r e d o v e r Li makes t h e f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n i n his p r e f a c e (iii) The e m p i r i c a l f a c t s amassed by Greenberg have made i t p o s s i b l e t o s t u d y t h e \\MY a n d t h e HOii q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e synchronic n a t u r e of word o r d e r and t h e d i a c h r o n i c p r o c e s s of word o r d e r change. However, d u r i n g t h e S i x t i e s , t h e f i e l d of s y n t a x i n t h e United ' S t a t e s was a l m o s t e x c l u si v e l y t h e domain o f t h o s e who r e s e a r c h e d t n e synchronic structure o f English, as i f t h e r e were an o p e r a t i o n a l synonyn between l t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ' and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l study o f E n e l i s h . t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e Thus, i n -t h e y e a r s immediately U n i v e r s a l s o f ~a n g u a g e , t h e i m m r e t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f e r e s t u d y w a s accorded l i t t f e a t t e n t i o n . N o t u n t i l t h e S e v e n t i e s have a t t e m p t s been made t o unde$stand and e x p l a i n those 'SHY arsd HOdJ q u e s t i o n s which a r e t h e obQious consequences of Greenberg's u n i v e r s a l s . T h i s book appears t o have a p l a c e i n t h e contemporary scene somewhere t h e Labovian p a r t o f t h e spectrum and t h e p a r t occupied by t h e g e n e r a t i v e t h e o r e t i c i a n s ; t h e f o r m e r , a l l o w i n g a dynamic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e m p i r i c a l 1iriguisti.c and s u p r a l i n g u i s t i c f a c t s ; t h e l a t t e r , s t r o n g l y t h e o r y -o r i e n t e d , producing as a consequence a more s t a t i c model. The e f f o r t s r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Conference on Word Order and Word Order Change e x h i b i t on one hand t h e dynamic empiricism of the Labovian working method, while on t h e o$her, show a response t o t h e general call f o r greater r i g o r and a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h e s e l i n g u i s t i c f a c t s w i t h t h e generat i v e model. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o go back a f e w years t o t h e symposium h e l d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n i n 1966, t h e proceedings o f which were p u b l i s h e d i n 1968 as D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i s t o r i c a l I ' i n g u i s t i c s . I n an e s s a y e n t i t l e d , ' E m p i r i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s f o r a t h e o r y of language. change1 , by d e i n r e i c h , Labov, and Herzog w e can s e e an anticipation o f t h e contributiohs made by t h e", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF17": { |
| "text": "t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n through empirical means o f t h e abstract claim that synchronic systems have ' dynamic1 tendencies. . . and (2)\"'the use of q u a q t i t a t i v e methods t o r e p l a c e anecdotal evidence and persuasivc~ targumen t .", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF18": { |
| "text": "They g o go on t o c r i t i c i z ewith j u s t i f i c a t i o nt h a t a t t h a t time Greenberg was lacking in an o v e r -a l l theory o f language s t r u c t u r e o r language change. But i n t h e n e x t paragraph t h e i r f o r e s i g h t and i n s i g h t grows dimr .-", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF19": { |
| "text": "A t the same time, one must admit t h a t h e is n e c e s s a r i l y confined t o s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e ' a t t h e lowest + l e v e l o f reliability which is common t o the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the 1anguages ' a v a i l a b l e t o him. It is sometimes argued t h a t one-must have a comprehensive theory o f language o r language change as a whole, before one can begin t o i n v e s t i g a t e language o r language change se$iously. If one h o l d s t o this d o c t r i n e , one would have t o be extremely c r i t i c a l of Green-berg1 s workmkudike procedures. (138-139 ; emphasis added) Returning t o the p r e s e n t , it i s evident t h a t ldeinreich e t ale we're c o r r e c t i n recognizing the p o t e n t i a l i n Greenberg* s work, and i n recognizing i t s need f o r a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e .It is a l s o clear that t h e y underestimated the value o f the study of word o r d e r , Keeping t h i s i n mind, t h e volume under review must be s e e n as a breakthrough first, because i t e r f e c t i v e l y s y n t h e s i z e s Greenbergvs u n i v e r s a l s and g e n e r a t i v e t h e o r y , and secondly, because t h i s synthesis l e a d s t o an unprecedented understanding of the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tween t h e s u r f ace c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a sentence. Of c o u r s e , many of t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s t o this c o l l e c t i o n have p u b l i s h e d similar m a t e r i a l t h a t p r e d a t e s t h i s v~l u m e . ~u t t h e i r success (such as i t might have been from case to c a s e ) was Singular. The impact o f t h i s book d e r i v e s from the s t r e n g t h o f t h e common purpose o f the twelve c o n t r i b u t o r s . C e r t a i n l y many o f the. claims made by these s c h o l a r s will e v e n t u a l l y have t o be m o d i f i e d , (some can be shown a l r e a d y t o be i n c o n f l i c t ) , o r w i l l have t o be c a s t asifle altogether. They r e a d i l y admit t h a t much o f t h e i r W O T~ is t e n t a t i v e . The 'breakthrough' i s n o t d e c i s i v e . However, t h e s e studies o f word order and word o r d e r change cons t i -t u t e a s t i m u l u s f o r new e x p l a n a t i o n s i n syntactic theory comparable t o t h e stimulus provided t o phonoldgical t h e o r y by t h e no -Lions o f markedness o r n a t u r a l n e s s . Hence, this volume r e p r e s e n t s t h e burgeoning o f a t h i r d d i r e c t i o n , an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e magor competing t h e o r i e s of 1-anguage and language change. It i s n o n -L a b o v i a n and non-gene r a t i y e , though, i t draws h e a v i l y f r o m both. The s t u d y o f language typology may c o n t r i b u t e i n an unexpected way t o o u r understandingd o f l i n g u i s t i c change. T h i s book i s rec'ommended r e a d i n g f o r any p r o f e s s i o n a l linguist. F o r t h e tea.chbr i t is a v a l u a b l e a s s e t because i t can be used as one o f the few r e f e r e n c e s f o r h i s t o r i c a l s y n t a c t i c change. Alas, n o t everybody l i k e s phonology. F r i e s , C h a r l e s C, 1940. On t h e development o f the s t r u c t u r a l use of word-ordef in Modern English. Lg. 16r199-205. Greenberg, Joseph. 1973. Numeral classifiers and s u b s t a n t i v a l numberr problems i n the genesis of a linguistic type. d o r k i n g Papers on Language Universals , 9. 1-39. S t a n f o r d . Universdls r M . I . T . Press.o f l a n g u a g e (second edition).Hyman, Larry. 1971b. Consecutivization in F e f e . JAL, 20.28 29-43.L a k o f f , Robin. 1972. Another l o o k a t d r i f t . L i n g u i s t i c change and generative t h e o r y ed. by Robert S t o c k w e l l a n d i i o n a l d Macaulay , 172-198. Bloomingtonr I n d i a n a University P r e s s . Lehmann, LlT. P . and M a l k i e l , Y ( eds. ) . 1968. D i r e c t i a n s for h i s t o r i c a l linguistics. A u s t i n ; U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas P r e s s . S a p i r , Edward. l9Zl. Language, an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e s t u d y of speech. N e w Y o r k t K a r c o u r t , Brace & Co. Vennemann, Thep. 1973a. Explanation i n syntax. .Syntax a n d semantics, Vol 11, ,ted. by J. Xirnbal.1, 1-50. N e w Y o r k t Seminar P r e s s , Neinreich, U., Zsfbov, W., and H e r z o g , M. 1968. ErnGirica.1 foundations f o r a t h e o r y o f language chahge. Directionsf o r h i s t o r i c a l linguistics, ed. by W . P . Lehmann & Y. I T a l k i e r , 95-188.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
