Search

We provide responses to the commentaries in this volume to evaluate, clarify and extend some of the arguments in Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Evidences show that DDM (dependency distance minimization) is an important linguistic universal, biologically or cognitively motivated, in shaping the language system. As a general tendency, DDM works quite well in theoretical argumentations as well as practical applications. However, this does not mean that DDM is the only linguistic universal that works: it is highly possible that other factors, which might be biologically, physically, socially or culturally motivated, work as well to jointly mold languages.

Lin (2017) aims to provide a refutation of universal grammar on methodological grounds, claiming that the method itself makes it impossible to discover any innate linguistic universals. In this paper, I show that this claim is overstated and that upon closer inspection, it merely points out the inductive nature of the empirical sciences. Assuming that the empirical sciences are not invalidated on methodological grounds by Lin's arguments, neither is the search for universal grammar.

The idea that human languages have properties suitable for efficient communication has permeated linguistic theorizing. Indirect correlational support for this idea has come from cross-linguistic synchronic and diachronic data. However, direct causal tests have been lacking. We directly test whether biases operating during language learning can cause learners to deviate from the input they receive towards output languages that better balance production efficiency against robust message transmission. We employ miniature language learning experiments to address this question for a well-documented cross-linguistic correlation between constituent order flexibility and the presence of case marking in a language. Participants were exposed to novel miniature languages that had optional case marking and either fixed or flexible constituent order. Between participants, we manipulated the amount of time and effort associated with the production of case marking. We find that learners introduced the cross-linguistically observed trade-off between case marking and constituent order flexibility into their output languages. Critically, learners only did so when case-marked nouns required additional effort compared to non-case-marked nouns. Thus, the present study suggests that even abstract grammatical properties of languages can be shaped by a balance between production efficiency and robust message transmission.

In this article we address some of the criticism of Vyvyan Evans’ work by David Adger. We argue that Adger (i) fails to evaluate Evans’ work appropriately, (ii) narrowly focuses on alleged misunderstandings but provides no thorough clarification of the Chomskyan framework, (iii) reveals an inadequate understanding of issues he claims expertise in, (iv) ignores work completed outside of the Chomskyan framework that casts legitimate doubt on the appropriateness of this framework, and, in related fashion, (v) fails to address specific challenges to the Chomskyan framework discussed by Evans. We suggest that any defender of the Chomskyan framework needs to address the following questions: [i] what are the specific theories Chomskyans are currently committed to, [ii] which concrete findings from developmental psychology and neurobiology support the Chomskyan framework, and [iii] how can the Chomskyan paradigm overcome the familiar, long standing challenges stated in the technical literature.

Formulaicity (i.e. knowledge of conventionalised multi-word combinations) in academic writing is not part of the native writer's innate language ability and is thus far from being a linguistic universal skill ( Kachru, 2009 , Wray, 2008 ). It can therefore be assumed that L2 academic writers find it particularly difficult to acquire native-like formulaic sequences. Building on this assumption, I use a 5.7 million-word corpus of expert academic writing to compare convergent and divergent usage of lexical bundles in three language variables, L1 English, L2 English and L1 Spanish. I identify core bundles (i.e., bundles shared by the three variables) and contend that writers' usage of these bundles is determined by register. I also compare the structures and functions of bundles specific to one or to two language variables to exemplify how these distinctive bundles build different pragmatic meanings in the texts. In identifying phraseological norms implicitly recognised by L1 writers, I argue that the use of bundles by the L2 writers deviates from L1 norms and conclude that, although they are expert writers, their formulaicity is ‘hybrid’, that is, largely, but not completely, native-like. I also discuss implications regarding L2 expert writers' interlanguage development and propose areas for pedagogical intervention.

In American Sign Language (ASL), pronouns are directed to locations in space associated with specific referents to refer to them (e.g., BOB on the left, BILL on the right). Despite the relative lack of ambiguity in identifying referents, Meier (1990) argues that second and third person cannot be distinguished in the ASL grammar, and instead proposes a single category “non-first” (an analysis adopted for many signed languages). If true, signed languages stand in stark contrast to spoken languages, for which three-person systems prevail. Alternatively, signed languages could mark a three-way distinction using eye gaze patterns to grammatically distinguish between second/third person referents (Berenz, 2002), just as eye gaze is known to mark verb agreement (Thompson et al., 2006). Using eye-tracking, we measured gaze occurring with pronouns, considering three different ways in which eye gaze could be used to mark pronouns. Results indicate that ASL does not use eye gaze to mark person, thus providing further support for a lack of a second/third person distinction. However, there is evidence for the use of eye gaze to mark locatives, which look like pronouns, but pick out a locative referent. We discuss possible reasons for the difference in person marking systems between signed and spoken languages, providing insight into what is universal across languages.

Pointing signs are used for pronominal reference (among many other functions) in sign languages. Many pointing signs do not look very different from non-signers’ pointing gestures (Kendon, 2004; Kita, 2003c). However, most sign language researchers, regardless of their theoretical perspective, assume that there is evidence for considering these pointing signs to be pronouns (i.e., distinct from pointing gestures used by non-signers). In this paper, we compare canonical properties of pronominal pointing signs in sign languages with (a) personal pronouns in spoken languages and (b) pointing gestures used by non-signers. We find firstly that the features that make pronominal signs difficult to characterise morphosyntactically are those features they share with pointing gestures and not with pronouns. Secondly, we find that the features that make pronominal signs difficult to characterise gesturally are those features they share with pronouns and not with pointing gestures. Therefore, we conclude that pronominal signs cannot be characterised exclusively either as personal pronouns, or as pointing gestures, but instead have characteristics of both. We discuss implications of this conclusion for linguistic theory and also for our understanding of linguistic diversity and linguistic universals. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

This contribution presents a view of language as pervasively substantively based. That is, linguistic categories and structures represent extra-linguistic mental ‘substance’ – conceptions and perceptions – in the sense that the latter determine the range of linguistic categories and their structural behaviour. The distribution of basic categories and the relations between them reflects their substance. Moreover, the dimensions of linguistic structure – notably constituency/dependency and linearity are, like the categories themselves, grammaticalizations of substance – respectively cognitive connectedness and salience and the perception of time. These substantively based dimensions are the basis for sub-modularization within syntax and phonology. Perceived similarities in substance underlie analogies between syntactic and phonological structure, and the lack of them discrepancies in structure. The relative generality of categories and structures throughout languages reflects the cognitive/perceptual salience of what they represent. Language universals, in particular, are substance-based rather than being conventionalized, or autonomous.

This article surveys some leading generative ideas about agreement and case, and connects them to several universal and near-universal observations noted by typologists. It begins with the familiar fact that adjectives can agree with noun phrases in number and gender but not in person, whereas verbs can agree in person as well—depending on the structure. From there it moves to the fact that verbs typically do not agree with their objects unless they also agree with their subjects. Several possible types of agreement with objects are then identified and distinguished, and some substantive similarities between object agreement and subject agreement are noted. It is shown that both subject agreement and object agreement are sensitive to the case morphology borne by the noun phrase (dative versus accusative, ergative versus nominative) in some languages but not in others, and the implications of this result for the assignment of case are considered. In all, the discussion covers four known linguistic universals in the area of agreement and case, and proposes three new ones. These are all explained in terms of two universal properties of the agreement relation and one parameter.

The study discusses and evaluates the pidginization theory and shows, through various standard and extensive references, how it relates to Second/Foreign language learning. In the introductory statements, the definition and sources of pidgin(ization) are illustrated. This is followed by background studies with special reference to the authors who have explored this sociolinguistic phenomena. In the discussion section, the linguistic characteristics of the pidginization theory are minutely examined in the context of Second and/or Foreign language learning. In this section, association between some variables such as linguistic universal and simplification, which dominate the structure of pidgin languages and their pedagogic significance, are examined. Finally, in the concluding remarks it is reasonably inferred that there is an analogy between pidginization theory and the early stages of Foreign/Second language acquisition, and Creolization (i.e. end result of pidginization) and the later stages of Foreign/Second language acquisition.

The present study sets out to investigate the structures and functions of general extenders (GEs) in native Persian and non-native English discourse. The data include two corpora of informal conversations collected by the participants themselves (circa 20 h). Both native and non-native corpora show that GEs are in the process of becoming more flexible with regard to their position. The Persian corpus was found to contain two unique GEs (‘vae vae vae’ and ‘vae in vae un’), that seemed to be directly transferred to English by the non-native speaker group (‘and and and’ and ‘and this and that’). The data further shows that, unlike in English, Persian GEs are not used to provide an intensifying effect in soliciting agreement. The non-native English corpus does not feature this function either. The findings also indicate that EFL learners do not tend to use the GE ‘and stuff’ to establish solidarity. Besides, the present study shows how Persian GEs can be used to fulfill the two unique functions of expressing outrage and arousing curiosity. In the former case, which is also found in the non-native English corpus, speakers echo the word they find offensive and add the GE ‘jahaerci’, and in the latter case, they lengthen the GE ‘vaeinâ’. Finally, it is argued that first language norms influence the use of GEs by non-native speakers.

Suprasegmental elements such as stress, pitch, juncture and linkers are language universals that are uttered naturally in the mother tongue without prior training but need to be learned systematically in the target language. Among other techniques of sentential pronunciation teaching to second language (L2) students, exercises with proverbs in the target language can be utilized effectively to acquire natural rhythm and articulation. By addressing a natural interest in traditional wisdom and common sense, proverbs in the target language benefit students with their grammatical and lexical importance and can be used to produce acceptable pronunciation and intonation in the new language. Going that one step further from word stress to sentential intonation by working on broad transcriptions, pronunciation teachers may produce a crystal pronunciation contributing to better communication.

This paper takes heed of The Myth of Language Universals ’ ( Evans and Levinson, 2009 ) warning that tenets can leave theoreticians “partially immunized against … proper consideration” and applies this admonition to the article itself. From an extremely modest focus of just one sentence and its subsequent defence, the paper reveals 27 failings of “proper consideration”, rising to 34 if given slightly wider focus. This high number covers a range of defects (from miscitation to errors in logic and misrepresentation of data, debates and theories) and affects material written at different times, on different themes, and in different organs. The paper urges, in consequence, that the field reconsider whether The Myth of Language Universals should be considered adequately to have argued its case.

Evans and Levinson's (2009) article claims that the assumption of Chomskyan generative linguistics that knowledge of natural language draws on a small inventory of principles with fixed parametric variation (i.e., Universal Grammar) is empirically untenable. We agree that the authors point out prima facie limitations of that approach, and we leave it to others to assess how well their criticisms survive closer scrutiny. Here we argue that Evans and Levinson (2009) overstate the dependence of current psycholinguistic research on the Chomskyan idea of Universal Grammar. To show this point, we review cross-linguistic research in sentence processing that shows the influence of two cognitive factors – ambiguity and memory demands – on the form of complex sentences within different languages and of the relative ease of understanding different types of sentences within those languages. The complex sentences we focus on contain relative clauses, a construction that has been extensively studied by typologists working in the tradition that seeks conditional statistical generalizations about similarities between languages. We argue that Evans and Levinson do not present a proposal counter to classical claims in generative linguistics that is comprehensive and testable in this domain.

Human languages are diverse and so precise statements of common properties must abstract away from specifics of particular languages. We note several abstract and absolute ‘Type 1’ universals and present some new ones built on a notion of ‘structural invariant’ that applies equally to constituent structure and individual grammatical morphemes. Crucially, these universals may be realized in structurally diverse ways.

Evans and Levinson (2009), henceforth E&L, advertise a new linguistic methodology. Down with the formal linguist's abstract structures. Accept differences between languages for what they seem to be, take variation at its face value. Look up in awe at the rich variety of languages history allowed us to develop, and let it fill you with admiration for the human mind's potential. No universals! Store your facts in a wonderful museum for all to visit. Given this position E&L strongly oppose linguistic frameworks (generative grammar) and methodologies (typology) that are looking for regularities, patterns and limits in cross-linguistic variation. Ofcourse,thereisnothingwrongadmiringthevagaries ofnature.Butdoesitleadto understanding?And haven'twelived through this before? A good museum combines a dejavu with new perspectives. But this one only gives the dejavu. The discussion of the linguistic universals E&L reject has the flavor of an archeological dig. Their characterization of generative linguistics reminded us of old magic lantern plates. Apparently much of what happened in generative linguistics in the last decades escaped their attention. This is a pity, since much of that development was triggered by similar concerns as E&L express. The conclusion was different, though. Even though the sort of linguistic evidence used by generative grammarians requires substantial in-depth analysis of languages, current linguistic work within generative grammar takes cross-linguistic variation very seriously, and started investigating the micro-structure of the computational system of human language. In fact this work is carrying out the program that E&L so summarily sketch.

In response to familiar problems with work on universals, it is proposed that there are genuine and exceptionless linguistic universals, but that they are derived not from data about the properties of individual languages but rather from more basic facts about non-linguistic mechanisms involved in language production, comprehension, and acquisition. The proposal is illustrated with the help of two phenomena, one involving the distribution of voiced stops in phonology and the other pertaining to constraints on filler-gap dependencies in syntax.

The target article by Evans and Levinson (E&L) concludes that there is little, if any, empirical evidence corresponding to ‘immutable’ principles of Universal Grammar. It would be surprising indeed if Universal Grammar failed to leave its imprint on languages around the globe, but it is a misunderstanding of the theory to limit the search for linguistic universals to counting up construction-types across languages, as E&L do in the target article. Here is an instructive quote from Chomsky (1965:6).

Evidence from sign language strongly supports three positions: (1) language is a coherent system with universal properties; (2) sign languages diverge from spoken languages in some aspects of their structure; and (3) domain-external factors can be identified that account for some crucial aspects of language structure -- uniform and diverse -- in both modalities. Assuming that any of these positions excludes the others defeats the purpose of the enterprise.

We largely agree with the points raised by Evans and Levinson (2009, henceforth, EL (2) we discuss EL and (3) we join E&L in highlighting the importance of sign languages when considering linguistic diversity and for understanding the emergence of new languages. We conclude by stressing the need for all linguists to consider the multimodal nature of language (including gesture and “paralinguistic” characteristics such as intonation and prosody) rather than just the classic linguistic characteristics which are the exclusive focus of much work in mainstream approaches to the study of language.

Following Farrell’s analysis [Farrell, P., 2001. Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics 5 (1), 109–130], I submit that the most parsimonious hypothesis for stems that are ambiguous with respect to the noun/verb distinction (such as English walk, love, kill, etc.) is that they are neither nouns nor verbs but flexibles. It is generally agreed that the main functions of nouns and verbs are linguistic argument and linguistic predicate, respectively, and that the linguistic predicate/argument distinction is universal in the world’s languages. I claim that if all languages have linguistic predicates and arguments, all languages must have at least one lexical class that maps to linguistic predicate and at least one lexical class that maps to linguistic argument. There are only three possibilities as to how a lexical class can map to linguistic predicate or argument: it can map to predicate, it can map to argument, or it can map to both. These three ways correspond to verbs, nouns and flexibles, respectively. Given this inventory of lexical classes, together with the premise that all languages have at least one lexical class that maps to argument and at least one that maps to predicate, the following five logically possible language types emerge: noun/verb/flexible, noun/flexible, verb/flexible, noun/verb, and flexible. After analyzing typological evidence for each of these types, I conclude that, if the criterion of pervasiveness of the typological trait is applied, type noun/verb/flexible is by far the most common, if not the only one present among the world’s languages, with type flexible ranking next in probability. In addition, as ‘word’ has traditionally been found difficult to define [Broschart, J., 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1 (2), 123–166; Di Sciullo, A.M., Williams, E., 1987. On the definition of word. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, vol. 14. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; Greenberg, J.H., 1963. Essays in Linguistics, Phoenix Books. Chicago, London], I propose the following definition for elementary word: a minimal unit of speech understood (though not necessarily used) outside context.

Previously, establishing a correspondence between the noun/verb and first order predicate logic's predicate/argument structures has been found problematic (Hurford, 2003a,b). The present paper argues that the predicate/argument system of natural language is more complex than that of first order predicate logic, with up to three levels of predicates and arguments and a rule system for generating predicates and arguments and converting predicates to arguments and vice versa. A property of this system is that nouns correspond to linguistic arguments and verbs correspond to linguistic predicates while the scope of linguistic arguments and predicates is not restricted to nouns and verbs. In addition, some particular properties of this system as well as general properties of any predicate/argument structure suggest that linguistic arguments (e.g. nouns) may be evolutionarily more fundamental than linguistic predicates (e.g. verbs). The second part of the paper analyzes this hypothesis, originally proposed by Heine and Kuteva (2002, 2007), and concludes, with a number of new arguments from a variety of domains, that the evidence of linguistic arguments predating linguistic predicates is overwhelming.

Does speaking a language without number words change the way speakers of that language perceive exact quantities? The Pirahã are an Amazonian tribe who have been previously studied for their limited numerical system [Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306, 496-499]. We show that the Pirahã have no linguistic method whatsoever for expressing exact quantity, not even "one." Despite this lack, when retested on the matching tasks used by Gordon, Pirahã speakers were able to perform exact matches with large numbers of objects perfectly but, as previously reported, they were inaccurate on matching tasks involving memory. These results suggest that language for exact number is a cultural invention rather than a linguistic universal, and that number words do not change our underlying representations of number but instead are a cognitive technology for keeping track of the cardinality of large sets across time, space, and changes in modality.

The characteristics which were held to define the Chinese language within the Western intellectual tradition placed it for a time at the centre in discussions of the genealogy of mankind. The dominant premodern paradigm for the explanation of human linguistic diversity was Biblical exegesis, as discussed and elaborated within the framework of ‘universal history’. A number of Western scholars argued that the Biblical patriarchs could be identified with legendary figures from Chinese history and that there was a direct link between the Chinese language and the pre-Babel linguistic order. The Chinese language, in particular its writing system, had universal characteristics, making it central in the quest for the restoration of the linguistic and conceptual unity of mankind. The rise of a modern linguistics marginalized universal projects of etymological speculation, and it was concluded that there was no cognate relationship between Chinese, Hebrew and the European languages. Both the language and the writing system were increasingly seen as anomalous and unnatural. Western understandings of the Chinese language and the Chinese writing system need to be contextualized within the evolution of conceptualizations of the natural and artificial.

This brief introduction to the volume compares models of grammaticality based on the simultaneous satisfaction of all UG constraints (e.g. Principles and Parameters, Minimalism) with models based on constraint conflict (e.g. Optimality Theory). It examines the consequences that these alternative definitions have on the analysis of crosslinguistic variation, economy of movement, and the conflict between economy of movement and economy of structure. In particular it shows how the desire to keep a simple definition of grammaticality (i.e. one based on simultaneous constraint satisfaction) is paid by the hidden complexity of economy principles and the theory-internal split separating the theoretical components addressing variation from those addressing linguistic universals, making variation accidental. In contrast, defining grammaticality on the base of constraint conflict roots variation into UG while keeping constraint complexity at check. A brief survey of the articles collected in this volume completes this introduction.

Are speakers equipped with preferences concerning grammatical structures that are absent in their language? We examine this question by investigating the sensitivity of English speakers to the sonority of onset clusters. Linguistic research suggests that certain onset clusters are universally preferred (e.g., bdlb). We demonstrate that such preferences modulate the perception of unattested onsets by English speakers: Monosyllabic auditory nonwords with onsets that are universally dispreferred (e.g., lbif) are more likely to be classified as disyllabic and misperceived as identical to their disyllabic counterparts (e.g., lebif) compared to onsets that are relatively preferred across languages (e.g., bdif). Consequently, dispreferred onsets benefit from priming by their epenthetic counterpart (e.g., lebif-lbif) as much as they benefit from identity priming (e.g., lbif-lbif). A similar pattern of misperception (e.g., lbif--lebif) was observed among speakers of Russian, where clusters of this type occur. But unlike English speakers, Russian speakers perceived these clusters accurately on most trials, suggesting that the perceptual illusions of English speakers are partly due to their linguistic experience, rather than phonetic confusion alone. Further evidence against a purely phonetic explanation for our results is offered by the capacity of English speakers to perceive such onsets accurately under conditions that encourage precise phonetic encoding. The perceptual illusions of English speakers are also irreducible to several statistical properties of the English lexicon. The systematic misperception of universally dispreferred onsets might reflect their ill-formedness in the grammars of all speakers, irrespective of linguistic experience. Such universal grammatical preferences implicate constraints on language learning.

A strong constraint on the arithmetical combinations allowed in compound numerals, called the Packing Strategy, applies very widely to numeral systems across the world. A previous attempt to explain the existence of the strong universal constraint, in terms of a gradual socio-historical process of standardization, will not scale up to higher-valued numerals. It is proposed that the real explanation for the Packing Strategy is that it reflects two natural principles applied in the practical task of counting objects. These two principles, “Go as far as you can with the resources you have”, and “Minimize the number of entities you are dealing with”, are not specific to the counting task, but are of more general application to practical tasks.

The Origin of Vowel Systems, Bart de Boer, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; xiii + 168 pp., ISBN-10: 0198299664; ISBN-13: 978-0198299660

This paper puts forward, on the basis of evidence and analysis, seven general principles of conceptualization of the body, reflected in the semantic organization of the ‘body and body-parts’ field across languages. It supplies a large set of semantic explications of English body-part terms, and it shows how ethno-anatomies can be described and compared through the use of the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM). It also returns to the controversial issue of the body-centric character of language and cognition. The paper is, to some extent, a reaction to the Special Issue on “Parts of the body: cross-linguistic categorization” ( Language Sciences 28:2–3). One of its goals is to vindicate well-established semantic universals such as body and part, which the Special Issue questions on the basis of raw data, discussed (as is it is argued) in a theoretical vacuum. More generally, the paper argues that semantic typology requires a semantic methodology and it shows what a theoretically-anchored semantic typology can look like.

Compounding has received little attention in linguistic typology and, in particular, in studies on linguistic universals. This paper seeks to study compounding as a universal process with special reference to Arabic nominal compounding. It aims to point out whether compounding is a universal process in light of Standard Arabic nominal compounding. It attempts to extrapolate universal tendencies in compounding with respect to the following features of compounding: the identity of compounding, classification of compounds, headedness of the compounds in the world's languages, relationships between the constituents of compounds, and universality of compounding. It proposes lines of empirical research and methodological suggestions towards the study of universals in compounding. The focus of the study is on nominal compounds consisting of two lexemes.

One major objection to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory [Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 56–311; Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987] raised by Matsumoto [J. Pragmatics 12 (1988) 403; Multilingua 8 (1989) 207; Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 2, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, pp. 55–67] and Ide [Multilingua 8 (1989) 223] is based on data involving Japanese honorifics. The issue is why honorifics, the use of which Brown and Levinson classifies as a negative politeness strategy (‘Give deference’), should occur in non-FTA utterances. Having shown that Brown and Levinson’s theory does not explain Japanese honorifics satisfactorily, Ide goes so far as to propose an account based on the concept of discernment. The purpose of this article is two-fold: (1) to show that by taking into consideration a salient feature of the Japanese society, namely, its vertical and hierarchical structure, it is possible to propose an account that is consistent with Brown and Levinson’s theory; and (2) to argue against the discernment theory which seems to have gained some recognition. A series of arguments will be advanced to show that an account based on the politeness theory is superior to the discernment account.

Can animals think? How does the cognition of humans differ from that of (other) primates and how does the cognition of primates differ from that of other animals? This paper argues that to explore questions of this kind fruitfully we need a unified conceptual framework within which the cognition of humans and animals could be jointly considered and compared in clear and precise terms. The paper draws attention to the conceptual issues involved in current socio-biological debates and shows that these debates can be clarified by the use of the “natural semantic metalanguage” (“NSM”) developed by the author and colleagues for the investigation and description of meaning. The central idea of the “NSM” theory of language and thought, supported by extensive empirical investigations by a number of researchers, is that despite their enormous diversity, all natural languages share a common core: a small vocabulary of 60 or so “conceptual primes” and a “universal grammar” (the combinatory properties of the primes). The universal conceptual primes and their combinatory properties identified in NSM research are analogous to the chemical elements and their basic combinatorial properties which opened new vistas for Chemistry. This paper shows that the NSM, which has already proved its potential in the study of languages and cultures, can also be an effective tool for exploring communication and cognition of primates and that it offers new perspectives on language acquisition, non-verbal communication, and evolutionary psychology.

The aim of this study is to examine cross-cultural politeness behavior. Politeness appears to be a prevalent concept in human interaction, and to date, many models of politeness have been put forward in the literature. The focal point of this paper is Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) formulation of politeness behavior, for compared with other models of politeness, theirs is the one that most clearly maintains its pancultural validity, thus evidently claiming its application as a basis for cross-cultural comparison (O'Driscoll, 1996). In this study, the compliment response behavior of native Chinese speakers, who are typically regarded as having rules of speaking and social norms very different from those of Westerners, is compared closely with that of native American English speakers to see if it can provide evidence to support Brown and Levinson's universal thesis. The results show that while there are indeed some general concepts and dimensions of politeness that are shared by Chinese and English speakers, the different strategies they use indicate the important role culture plays in its speakers’ speech act performance. This important role should never be treated lightly when we explore the issue of speech act universality.

Probably no contemporary linguist has published as profusely on the connections between semantics, culture, and cognition as Anna Wierzbicka. This paper explores the similarities and differences between her “natural semantic metalanguage” (NSM) approach and the linguistic theory of Benjamin Lee Whorf. It shows that while some work by Wierzbicka and colleagues can be seen as “neo-Whorfian”, other aspects of the NSM program are “counter-Whorfian”. Issues considered include the meaning of linguistic relativity, the nature of conceptual universals and the consequences for semantic methodology, the importance of polysemy, and the scale and locus of semantic variation between languages, particularly in relation to the domain of time. Examples are drawn primarily from English, Russian, and Hopi.

A new theoretical approach to language has emerged in the past 10-15 years that allows linguistic observations about form-meaning pairings, known as 'constructions', to be stated directly. Constructionist approaches aim to account for the full range of facts about language, without assuming that a particular subset of the data is part of a privileged 'core'. Researchers in this field argue that unusual constructions shed light on more general issues, and can illuminate what is required for a complete account of language.

Linguists rely on intuitive conceptions of structure when comparing expressions and languages. In an algebraic presentation of a language, some natural notions of similarity can be rigorously defined (e.g. among elements of a language, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of the language; and among languages, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of symmetry groups), but it turns out that slightly more complex and nonstandard notions are needed to capture the kinds of comparisons linguists want to make. This paper identifies some of the important notions of structural similarity, with attention to similarity claims that are prominent in the current linguistic tradition of transformational grammar.

This paper focusses on “the great Australian adjective” bloody and it shows that far from being meaningless, the humble bloody is packed with meaning; and that by unpacking this meaning we can throw a good deal of light on traditional Australian attitudes and values. It argues that the use of bloody furnishes an important clue to both the changes and continuity in Australian culture, society, and speech and also offers us a vantage point from which to investigate a whole network of Australian attitudes and values. Furthermore, the paper shows that the Australian use of bloody also illuminates some important theoretical issues, it demonstrates that frequently used and apparently “bleached” discourse markers do in fact have their own precise meaning, and that this meaning can be revealed by means of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), based on empirically established universal human concepts. It also shows that once the precise meaning of such discourse markers is accurately portrayed, it can provide important clues to the values, attitudes, and modes of interaction characteristic of a given society or speech community.

The words sabar, ikhlas, and setia arguably identify core personal virtues in traditional Malay culture. Using Anna Wierzbicka's ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ (NSM) approach, this paper undertakes a contrastive semantic analysis of these terms and their usual English translations, such as patient, sincere, and loyal. A number of significant meaning differences are brought to light, allowing an improved understanding of the cultural semantics of the Malay concepts.

Zellig S. Harris's original idea of transformations has been transformed (changed) several times in Chomsky's work. In this paper I shall explicate all these transformations (changes). I shall argue that, though their motivations are highly understandable, these transformations (changes) are not necessary for understanding the workings of natural languages. In other words, I shall argue that Harris's transformational grammar is quite adequate. I shall also argue that the idea of ‘discovery procedures’, seen from a novel point view which I shall provide, can indeed lead to important discoveries about the secrets of human language and the human mind.

Chinese writers of academic texts in English demonstrate a clear tendency to place in sentence-initial position certain topic-fronting devices (beginning For and Concerning), and logical connectors (Besides, Furthermore and Moreover) to introduce new information. When fronted in this way, these items usurp the position of the information structure element referred to in systemic-functional linguistics as theme. Theme functions in discourse to convey given or known information, but when theme position is occupied by new information, that information may constitute a marked theme. To establish empirically that Chinese subjects utilise theme position in the way described, a non-native speaker (NNS) corpus of academic writing produced by Chinese subjects was tagged to detect occurrences of the two topic-fronting devices and the three thematised connectors. The same phenomena were similarly investigated in three native-speaker (NS) corpora. The findings demonstrate that Chinese subjects do have a greater tendency than native speakers to place the connectors under consideration in theme position, but the findings are less clear for the topic-fronting devices. This empirical study was followed by an exercise in which texts containing marked themes were analysed to determine the effects of the markedness on information structure. It was found that inappropriate occupation of theme position by the items under consideration here has a deleterious effect on information structure and that this, in turn, has negative effects on both local and global text coherence.

View Large Image | Download PowerPoint SlideView Large Image | Download PowerPoint SlideTwo recent books encapsulate two influential recent theoretical developments in syntax. Both take simplicity as their starting point but in radically contrasting ways, and with dramatically different results. Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff's Simpler Syntax aims to make syntactic representations as simple as possible. Cedric Boeckx's Linguistic Minimalism investigates the attempt to minimize the complexity of the principles of syntax, as proposed by Chomsky in the mid-1990s. Both books set out research programs rather than finished ‘theories’ of syntax. But their different interpretations of simplicity lead to different perspectives on syntax, its relationship to semantics, and to the cognitive and biological foundations of language. The question, for this review, is: how do these contrasting theoretical programs mesh with the broader cognitive science of language?Culicover and Jackendoff's Simpler Syntax hypothesis proposes striking a retreat from the increasingly complex and abstract syntactic representations emerging from the past four decades’ research on generative grammar. They suggest that syntactic theory should postulate the minimum structure necessary to mediate between phonology and meaning. And the result is simple indeed: a theory involving simple phrase structure trees, with well-known labels (e.g. Det, N and NP), which look delightfully familiar to the computational linguist or psycholinguist. Culicover and Jackendoff argue that the apparent complexity of syntax arises because of its intricate interactions with phonology and semantics.Culicover and Jackendoff emphasize the idiosyncrasy and complexity of language – focussing on issues that generative grammarians have often ignored as the linguistic ‘periphery’. Indeed, Culicover [1xSyntactic Nuts. Culicover, P.W. See all References][1] has previously argued that lexical items cannot be grouped into a small number of sharply defined syntactic categories because each item has its own distinctive syntactic properties. Similar to Construction Grammar approaches (e.g. Ref. [2xConstructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Goldberg, A.E. See all References][2]), Culicover and Jackendoff suggest that there is no sharp distinction between lexicon and grammar. However, they still advocate the autonomy of syntax in certain cases involving constituency and/or ordering of syntactic elements (e.g. initial or final V in VPs) – enough, they argue, to mediate the relationship between semantics and phonology.The real power of the Simpler Syntax approach is illustrated by a series of detailed and tightly argued reappraisals of classic linguistic phenomena, from binding and control, to ellipsis and island constraints. In each case, they argue that the complexity of an apparently syntactic process in reality arises from the interaction of syntax and semantics. They illustrate how, by studying the syntax–semantics relation more closely, the intricacies of the phenomenon can be, at least partially, unravelled, without elaborating their bare syntactic machinery.One of many elegant discussions concerns pronoun binding. Seeing John carelessly cropping one of his holiday snaps, it's natural to say:Look, John's just cut himself in half.(1)In (1), the reflexive pronoun himself does not co-refer with John, as mandated by standard binding theory, one of the core principles of standard generative grammar [3xLectures on Government and Binding. Chomsky, N. See all References][3]. Instead, it binds to a representation of John. The syntactic legitimacy of such uses has, Culicover and Jackendoff argue, a transparently semantic origin – although they argue that a purely semantic or pragmatic analysis, which ignores syntactic structure, cannot work. Thus, what matters is the interface between syntax and semantics.Culicover and Jackendoff's framework should be of interest to the wider cognitive science community. Syntactic analyses are straightforward; the approach is constraint-based, exploiting rich interconnections between phonology, syntax and semantics (discussed extensively in [4xFoundations of Language. Jackendoff, R. CrossRefSee all References][4]) to better fit with the apparently rich interactions between these sources in processing and acquisition. Moreover, their simple syntactic analysis might have immediate implications for acquisition. An influential recent nativist argument [5xWhat infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Lidz, J. et al. Cognition. 2003; 89: B65–B73CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (30)See all References][5] asks, rhetorically, how could children possibly know, from the available input, that, for example, the long story has the nested structure (Figure 1Figure 1a ) rather than the flat structure (Figure 1Figure 1b)?Figure 1The long story. (a) Nested structure. (b) Flat structure. Abbreviations: Adj, adjective; Det, determiner; N, noun; N′, this is a technical notion from linguistic theory, specifically X-bar syntax; NP, noun phrase.View Large Image | Download PowerPoint SlideSimpler syntax could offer a way out of this puzzle. The child does not need innate knowledge to reject the flat structure (Figure 1Figure 1b) because it is the syntactically correct analysis.However, this type of ‘relaxed’ theoretical framework might seem difficult to reconcile with strong claims about language universals. Culicover and Jackendoff suggest that languages draw on a universal ‘toolbox’ of language-specific mechanisms encoded in an innate Universal Grammar, but that each language uses different subsets of tools. But this raises a puzzle: why evolve ‘tools’ that are not used in the present linguistic environment? This appears to require uncanny, and perhaps implausible, evolutionary foresight.Boeckx's Linguistic Minimalism has a different flavor. The program takes the broad structure of linguistic theory to be already established, and enunciated in the ‘Principles and Parameters’ approach [3xLectures on Government and Binding. Chomsky, N. See all References][3] (although Culicover and Jackendoff might disagree). Minimalism aims to provide a reconstruction of this account, using a few deep principles – that are presumed to arise from the assumption that language is ‘perfectly’ designed to relate sound and meaning. What the criteria for such perfection are has not yet been fully defined – but the hope is that language will follow from ‘our best guesses regarding conceptual, biological, physical necessity’ (Boeckx, p. 4). Yet the aim of keeping principles simple has spectacularly inflationary implications for syntactic structure, contrasting starkly with Simpler Syntax. Boeckx comments approvingly (p. 53) that ‘many linguists…believe that simple declarative sentences consist of about fifty phrases, all embedded inside one another’. The implications of such complexity for theories of parsing, production and the incremental construction of meaning are alarming.One might wonder how much direct contact with linguistic judgments, let alone psycholinguistic or neuroscientific data, might be possible from a minimalist perspective. But where the account does contact the data, one wonders how strong the connection really is. Boeckx notes that ‘...it is now a well-established fact that if you try to front an element X of type Y to a position Z, you cannot do this if there is an element W of type Y that is in between X and Z. This is the basic idea behind Rizzi's Relativized Minimality principle and of Chomsky and Lasnik's variant in terms of Shortest Move. If a Nobel Prize in linguistics existed, I think Rizzi's insight ought to be rewarded with it’ (Boeckx, 2006, p. 103). Rizzi's [6xRelativized Minimality. Rizzi, L. See all References][6] insight, now incorporated into mainstream minimalism, is, Boeckx says, exemplified in the contrast:The boy was given the toy. (Compare with: somebody gave the boy the toy)(2)The toy was given the boy.(3)Crucially, (3) is presumed to be ungrammatical. Yet this structure is acceptable in UK English. Indeed, the celebrated British grammarian Quirk (p. 214 in Ref. [7xDescriptive statement and serial relationship. Quirk, R. Language. 1965; 41: 205–217CrossRefSee all References][7]) directly discusses grammatical sentences such as:A book was given the boy by the man(4)This observation concerning variation between dialects seems ominous for any fundamental and putatively universal linguistic constraint.Minimalists might not be particularly concerned about such details. Minimalism is aiming for deep underlying regularities in the grammatical ‘core’. Irregularity and inelegance is presumed to reside in the linguistic periphery and can be set aside. By contrast, Culicover and Jackendoff argue that the ragged ‘periphery’ contains the essence of language; whatever linguistic devices, processing mechanisms and acquisition strategies are required to deal with the periphery, where language is irregular and idiosyncratic, should suffice to deal with any residual core. A cognitive science of language might do better to go in the direction of simpler syntax (or Construction Grammar proper), and accept the imperfection and complexity of linguistic structure, and to leave the minimalist program to specialists interested in the internal structure of linguistic theory.

This paper takes a subset of the semantic primitives currently proposed in the Natural Semantic Metalanguage theory (Wierzbicka, 1996) and addresses two questions: Do these meanings have lexical equivalents in Cantonese? If so, does their combinatorial syntax conform to Wierzbicka's hypotheses? The temporal primitives ( when/time, now, before, after, a long time, a short time ) are all found to have clear Cantonese exponents which can be combined as predicted with other metalanguage elements—but for two exceptions: the combinations a very short time and before/after now are apparently not possible in Cantonese. We also argue that the Cantonese evidence suggests that ‘when-time’ (as in the phrase at this time ) and ‘frequency time’ (as in it happened two times ) may be distinct semantic primes. As for the spatial primitives ( where/place, here, near, far, inside, side, above, below ), they all appear to have Cantonese exponents with the predicted syntax, but the tentative proposal that on may be a universal primitive is challenged by the apparent lack of an equivalent expression in Cantonese.

This paper examines whether Anna Wierzbicka's (1996a, 1996b) hypothesis that the ‘conditional’ and ‘counterfactual’ constructions are semantic universals, can be justified in the case of the Japanese language. Many Japanese constructions are compatible with both condition ( if ) and temporal ( when ) interpretation; despite this, it is shown that there is an unambiguous exponent of the if -construction in Japanese, which uses the particle moshi . It is also shown that the English ‘hypothetical conditional’ has an equivalent, or near-equivalent, in Japanese. As for the counterfactual, it is argued that while there is an unambiguous counterfactual in Japanese, in the form of a construction with (no)ni , this construction is not a perfect equivalent of the English counterfactual because the Japanese construction always implies that the speaker feels something bad about the real outcome.

The paper explores the combinatorial possibilities of the proposed semantic primes of time and space in French. It highlights the need for combinatorial and portmanteau allolexies to express some combinations, in particular, for many of the combinations involving WHEN/TIME.

This study presents evidence collected from basilectal texts that the NSM mental predicates ( think, know, want, feel, say, see , and hear ) have clear lexical exponents in Hawaii Creole English and that these HCE predicates occur, with minor qualification, in the syntactic configurations predicted by Wierzbicka (1996).

Lexical exponents of the proposed semantic primitives above, under, inside and on the side are identified in Longgu (Solomon Islands). It is argued that the first three of these exponents are polysemous between a semantically primitive relational sense and a secondary topological sense. A number of issues relating to the morphosyntax of the exponents are discussed, including their status as ‘local nouns’, the significance of the fact that their basic syntactic frame employs the same system of person-number agreement suffixes as the inalienable possession construction, and the difference between this basic frame and a rarer ‘associative construction’. There is also a brief discussion of the status of the hypothetical primitive ‘ on ’ in Longgu.

Anna Wierzbicka's ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ (NSM) theory has given rise to a new approach to investigating the fundamentals of syntax. The central idea is that all languages share an irreducible core which consists of a set of universal semantic primitives with certain universal combinatorial (i.e. syntactic) properties. This paper outlines a series of hypotheses about the universal syntax of semantic primitives—hypotheses which are tested in the individual language studies which comprise the rest of the volume. Topics include: the valency options and complementation possibilities of primitive predicates such as do, happen, want, think, say and know , the grammar of temporal and locative primitives (such as when/time, before, after, where/place, above, below, near, far ), and of the conditional ( if… ) and counterfactual ( if…would ) constructions.