Search

The category of person has both inflectional and lexical aspects, and the distinction provides a finely graduated grammatical trait, relatively stable in both families and areas, and revealing for both typology and linguistic geography. Inflectional behavior includes reference to speech-act roles, indexation of arguments, discreteness from other categories such as number or gender, assignment and/or placement in syntax, arrangement in paradigms, and general resemblance to closed-class items. Lexical behavior includes sharing categories and/or forms and/or syntactic behavior with major lexical classes (usually nouns) and generally resembling open-class items. Criteria are given here for typologizing person as more vs. less inflectional, some basic typological correlations are tested, and the worldwide linguistic-geographical distribution is mapped.

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2005) Correlating complexity: a typological approach Ryan K. Shosted University of California, Berkeley “In sum, linguists don’t even think of trying to rate languages as good or bad, simple or complex.” (O’Grady et al. 2005: 7) Abstract Proceeding from the assumption that all languages are equally complex, there exists a corollary, widely held but poorly documented, herein referred to as the negative correlation hypothesis. It states: if one component of language is simplified then another must be elaborated. Here, this assumption is reformulated in terms of a scientific hypothesis and subjected to statistical analysis. Thirty-two geographically diverse languages representing 30 language families and two isolates are tested for syllable count and inflectional synthesis on the verb as a means of rating their phonological and morphological complexity, respectively. The correlation between these measures is found to be slightly positive (r=0.0704), but statistically insignificant (p>0.05), indicating that the negative correlation hypothesis, if it is to be retained, still awaits scientific confirmation. Introduction The complexity problem and holistic typology Among some linguists, it seems there is a tacit assumption that the various components of human language (phonology, morphology, the lexicon, syntax and semantics) correlate negatively within a single language based on complexity. From such an assumption, it could be argued that if a language is simple in terms of its phonology (e.g. if it has a low number of contrastive elements, distinctive features, allophonic alternations, etc.) the language as a system will somehow force elaboration in the areas of syntax or morphology, etc. Throughout this paper, I will refer to this notion as the “negative correlation hypothesis.” Introductory linguistics textbooks often note in their first few pages that all grammars are, in a sense, “created equal.” For example, Akmajian et al. (1997: 8) declare, “Although it is obvious that specific languages differ from each other on the surface, if we look closer we find that human languages are surprisingly similar. For instance, all known languages are at a similar level of complexity and detail— there is no such thing as a primitive language.” In their text, the first stated goal of Cipollone et al. (1998: 2) is to convince the reader that “[e]very language is enormously complex.” On the matter of what they call grammatical “equality,” O’Grady et al. (1997: 6) reason that “[i]t is futile to attempt to ‘rank’ languages in terms of relative sophistication.” Nonetheless, it seems clear to even the casual observer that some languages do in fact have smaller/simpler/less sophisticated linguistic components than corresponding components in other languages. For example, Ju|’hoan (Northern Khoisan) has 93 phonemic consonants and Yimas (Lower Sepik) has only twelve (see Table 2). How, then, can these two languages end up with “a similar level of complexity and detail” when all other linguistic components are taken into account? Based on the foundational assumption of “grammatical equality,” there are two possible answers: (1) Yimas compensates for what it lacks in terms of phonological complexity through elaboration (beyond that of Ju|’hoan) in terms of its syntax, morphology, semantics, etc.; or (2) There is some aspect of phonological complexity that is not effectively captured by simply counting the consonants in these two languages (i.e. the phonologies are equally complex when other variables are considered). Both are valid responses to the perplexing position we inherit from the dictum that all languages are equally complex (and the corollary, in the case of (1), that their components may not be). However, neither response, to my knowledge, has ever been validated using quantitative methods that produce falsifiable results—an astonishing lacuna, considering the widespread acceptance of grammatical equality. Several enlightening discussions of differential linguistic complexity have recently come forth. Dahl (2004: 42) observes: “Given that a language as a system can be seen as involving both resources [the inventory of structured linguistic units] and regulations [roughly, ‘rules’], it follows that a language could

Kin terms in some languages have suppletive roots according to the person of the possessor, as in Kaluli na:la ‘my daughter’, ga:la ‘your daughter’ versus ida ‘her/his daughter’. Suppletion is generally seen as a language-specific morphological peculiarity, but in this context there are a number of lexical and morphological similarities across languages, suggesting the motivation may also lie in the nature of kin terms themselves. We offer a typological assessment suppletive kin terms through a case study of the languages of New Guinea, where the phenomenon appears to be particularly common.

This article describes the reality status system of Nanti (Arawak) and argues that it constitutes an instance of a canonical reality status system. The relevance of such a system is examined in the light of literature that casts doubt on the typological validity of reality status as crosslinguistic grammatical category. It is shown that reality status is an obligatory inflectional category in Nanti, and that the distribution of realis and irrealis marking across Nanti construction types hews closely to expectations based on notional understandings of “realis” and “irrealis” categories grounded in a contrast between “realized” and “unrealized” situations. It is also shown that the Nanti reality status system does not exhibit evidence of being based, either synchronically or diachronically, on semantically narrower notions that could account for the distribution of reality status marking in the language, without recourse to the more generalized notions of realized and unrealized events. It is suggested that the Nanti reality status system might serve as a suitable canonical system around which a canonical typology of reality status might be built.

Iquito, a Zaparoan language of Peruvian Amazonia, marks a binary distinction between realis and irrealis clauses solely by means of a word order alternation. Realis clauses exhibit a construction in which no element intervenes between the subject and verb, while in irrealis clauses a phrasal constituent appears between the subject and verb. No free or bound morphology otherwise indicates whether an Iquito clause is realis or irrealis. Based on these facts and partially similar phenomena in other languages, this article argues that typologies of inflectional exponence should be expanded to include word order as an inflectional formative.

It is commonly accepted that the process of pidginization leads to a loss of inflectional morphology, but this loss is often not total. Lexifier inflections instead follow a cline of reduction: full retention ‐ partial retention ‐ partial lexicalization ‐ full lexicalization ‐ full loss. This article examines the retention of inflection in 29 languages that reflect a history of pidginization in their development, comparing the morphological richness of pidgins with their respective lexifiers. The results indicate an asymmetry between the retention of inherent and contextual inflections, such that pidgins express fewer grammatical categories via contextual inflection than do their lexifiers. The authors suggest that this may reflect a role of markedness (semantic relevance) in the preservation of inflection.