John Whitman (NINJAL Cornell) Yohei Ono (The Graduate University
for Advanced Studies) DiGSXV 2013.8.1 University of Ottawa
[email protected] 1 Slide 2 1. Basic idea A long tradition in the
functional/typological literature attributes crosscategorial
consituent order generalizations on word order to a language change
(Givon 1975, Aristar 1991). Suppose this idea is right. 2 Slide 3
1. Basic questions Two questions still remain: (i)Exactly what
constituent order properties cohere? (ii)Why those properties? 3
Slide 4 1. Basic idea This paper sets out to investigate these
questions based on a statistical investigation of latent
interrelationships between typological parameters (features) in
WALS (Dryer and Haspelmath 2011) (Ono et al 2013). 4 Slide 5 1.1.
Roadmap 2. Cross-categorial word order generalizations (CWOGs) are
statistical 3. CWOGs in a factor/cluster analysis of typological
parameters 4. Significant CWOGs are limited to head-argument order
5. This is meaningful for understanding how syntactic change
produces CWOGs 5 Slide 6 2.1Cross-categorial word order
generalizations (Greenberg 1963/6, Dryer 1999) Cross-categorial
word order generalizations (CWOGs) are a subtype of implicational
universal that relates the internal constituent order properties of
distinct categories. 6 Slide 7 2.1 Cross-categorial word order
generalizations Example: Greenbergs (1963/6) Universal 3 Universal
3. Languages with dominant VSO order are always prepositional.
(Greenberg 1966: 78). 7 Slide 8 2.2 Cross-categorial word order
generalizations are statistical We have much more data about
constituent order typology than we did 50 years ago. Universal 3 is
statistical. Greenberg himself (1963: 107) cites Papago (O'odham)as
an exception to Universal 3. More counterexamples are provided by
Payne (1986). Dryer in Haspelmath et al (2005) lists 6 languages
which are postpositional with dominant VSO order (out of a total of
38 postpositional languages with dominant VO order). 8 Slide 9 2.2
Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statistical The
same is true for more complex CWOGs that appeared to be
exceptionless 50 years ago. Universal 5. If a language has dominant
SOV order and the genitive follows the governing noun, then the
adjective likewise follows the noun. (Greenberg 1966: 79). 9 Slide
10 2.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statistical
Plank (2003) credits Dryer for the observation that Tigre
counterexemplifies Universal #5. Tigre has OV, noun- genitive, and
adjective-noun order. (2) Tigre NP internal order (Raz 1983: 95) a.
Galab 't ' tyopya lat trakkab [hatte n 'is d gge] ta. Galab in
Ethiopia which is found one small town Galab is a small town which
is found in Ethiopia. b. 'Aze hatte m l ' t [h day 'ad wa'aga]
fararaw Now oneday to wed party family guenon 3PL.went One day they
went out to the wedding party of the family of the guenon. 10 Slide
11 2.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statistical
Even CWOGs whose exceptions are very, very token- rare give no
evidence for being difficult to acquire. For example, (3) VO ->
N Rel is counterexemplified by only 5 languages out of 705 VO
languages in Dryer & Haspelmath (2011). 3 are Sinitic, 1 (Bai)
heavily and 1 (Amis) possibly influenced by Chinese. Yet
altogether, well over a billion speakers acquire this order. There
is no evidence that this or other rare consitutent orders are
difficult to acquire. 11 Slide 12 2.2 Cross-categorial word order
generalizations are statistical CWOGs also have a peculiar
theoretical status. Suppose that Complement Head order is generated
by leftward movement of the complement to Spec of a functional
projection (Kayne 1994, Chomsky 1995): (4) FP [ XP YP [ Y t XP ]]
It is not obvious why (or how) functional projections in completely
distinct categories (e.g. VP and PP) should trigger the same
movement. 12 Slide 13 2.2 Cross-categorial word order
generalizations are statistical The original formal expression of
CWOGs, the Head Parameter (Chomsky 1981) was a meta- constraint on
d-structure. But that level of representation no longer exists in
contemporary derivational theories. 13 Slide 14 2. Cross-categorial
word order generalizations are statistical CWOGs are not the only
kind of generalization bearing on word order. Whitman (2008)
distinguishes 3 types of generalizations. (i) Cross-categorial
generalizations (CWOGs) (ii) Hierarchical generalizations (iii)
Derivational generalizations 14 Slide 15 2. Cross-categorial word
order generalizations are statistical Hierarchical generalizations
are the type of generalization targeted by Cartography (Rizzi 1997,
Cinque 1999), Rizzi 2004 and many others). Insofar as heads and
their specifiers high in the structure are spelled out on the left,
hierarchical generalizations affect constituent order. 15 Slide 16
2. Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statistical
Greenbergs Universal 1 is a hierarchical generalization. Universal
1. In declarative sentences with nominal subject and object, the
dominant order is always one in which the subject precedes the
object. (Greenberg 1966: 76). 16 Slide 17 2. Cross-categorial word
order generalizations are statistical Derivational generalizations
affect constituent order through constraints on possible
derivations. Greenbergs Universal 7 can be understood this way.
Universal 7. If in a language with dominant SOV order, there is no
alternative basic order, or only OSV as the alternative, then all
adverbial modifiers of the verb likewise precede the verb. (This is
the rigid subtype of III.) (Greenberg 1966: 78) 17 Slide 18 2.2
Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statistical Suppose
complement-head order is derived by movement of the complement to a
higher spec. There are two scenarios: (5) NP SUBJ [NP OBJ [ V t
OBJ...]] (SOVX Mandic) (6) NP SUBJ [[... NP OB t V...] VP [V...t VP
]] (Japanese) 18 Slide 19 2.3 Harmony and disharmony Recently,
Biberauer et al (2011) have proposed a more sophisticated
constraint on constituent order disharmonies: situations where
head- complement order differs across categories in a single
language. 19 Slide 20 2.3 Harmony and disharmony Biberauer et als
Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) rules out the case where a
head-initial phrase is immediately dominated by a head- final
phrase , where and are non-distinct in categorical features: ( 7) *
P 20 Slide 21 2.3 Harmony and disharmony As Biberauer et al point
out, the FOFC can be understood as a derivational generalization,
since it applies within a single derivation, as opposed to CWOGs,
which must apply across distinct derivations. ( 7) * P 21 Slide 22
2.3 Harmony and disharmony Even so, the FOFC is not secure. As van
Riemsdijk (1990) shows, West Germanic cricumpositions have the
constituency [ PospositionalP [ PrepositionalP Prep DP ] Postp]
(cf. Djamouri et at 2013, to appear): (8) [ PostP [ PreP unter der
Brcke ] durch] under the DAT bridge DAT through through under the
bridge 22 Slide 23 2.4 CWOGs: Summary CWOGs have exceptions. They
are statistical. There is no evidence that exceptions to CWOGs
(disharmonies) are hard to learn. As such, CWOGs are not good
candidates for components of UG. Hierarchical and derivational
generalizations account for many word order generalizations. They
are good candidates for components of UG. The
functional/typological view of residual CWOGs is right. They are
byproducts of syntactic change. 23 Slide 24 2.5 CWOGs from
syntactic reanalysis Diachronic explanations CWOGs are proposed by
Givon (1975, 1979) and are the focus of Aristar (1991). 24 Slide 25
2.5 CWOGs from syntactic reanalysis CategorySourceExample
CompVerbEnglish I should of gone (Kayne 1997) CompAdpositionEnglish
for + infinitive AuxMain verbEnglish will PVerbEnglish like
PRelational noun English go [back the farm] 25 Slide 26 2.5 CWOGs
from syntactic reanalysis Partial List of Chinese Ps (Djamouri et
al 2013) a.Preposition b.Postpostion chofacinghubehind; after cng
fromlifor, during dng(zhe)at, facinglin dotoniinside, within
dutowardpngnext to, at the side of duywith respectqinin front of;
before gi to; forqinhuaround gnwithshngon gnjaccording
toshngxiaround, about guny concerningwioutside, beyond lfrom,
awayxiunder tinstead of, foryhuafter (temporal) wngin the direction
ofylisince, during wi(le)for the sake ofyniinside, within xingin
the direction ofyqinbefore, ago yn(zhe)alongyshngabove, over zi in,
atywioutside, beyond 26 Slide 27 2.5 CWOGs from syntactic
reanalysis Reanalysis of Chinese relational nouns as Ps (Djamouri
et al 2013) (9) (Guanzi 859/3, 1 st c. BCE) [ DP sn yu zh hu] three
month GEN posteriority After three months (10) (Hanshu, 2 nd c. CE)
rn dng zi [ PostP shy yu hu] leap:month must be:at 11 month after
The leap month must occur after the eleventh month. 27 Slide 28
2.6. CWOGs from reanalysis: summary Well-attested cases V > Aux,
P, C; N > P, C Less clear cases v[ NOML ] > vP (Claudi 1993,
1994 for Niger-Congo; Aldridge this conference for Austronesian )
28 Slide 29 3. A factor/cluster analysis of parameters in WALS
online (Ono et al 2013) Investigates interrelationships values of
225 parameters (features) for 236 languages in The World Atlas of
Language Structures Online (Dryer & Haspelmath 2011). First
applies a non-metric factor analysis called Hayashis Quantification
Method III to identify latent relationships between WALS feature
values Next applies a standard clustering technique (Wall 1963) to
the output of QMIII. 29 Slide 30 3.1 A factor/cluster analysis of
feature values in WALS online (Ono et al 2013) BCBC 30 Slide 31 3.1
The full story (Ono et al 2013) 31 Slide 32 Slide 33 Slide 34 3.1
Cluster analysis applied to the output of QMIII 3. Ntay L lam L -p
h e HL -ko LF k tay L -mu LF ce LF -say L. this thing- OBJ - TOP
who-even know- VSM This, anyone knows. (Jingphaw; Ohnishi 2012:
175) 34 Slide 35 3.1 Result: Salient clusters (red circles) Slide
36 3.1 The highest order clusters again (Ono et al 2013) BCBC 36
Slide 37 3.2 Cluster A: Head-initial WO values
FeatureTitleValueDomain X37A_1Definite ArticlesDefinite word
distinct from demonstrative Nominal Categories X81A_2Order of
Subject, Object and Verb SVOWord Order X83A_2Order of Object and
VerbVOWord Order X84A_1Order of Object, Oblique, and Verb VOXWord
Order X85A_2Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase PrepositionsWord
Order X86A_2Order of Genitive and NounNoun-GenitiveWord Order
X90A_1Order of Relative Clause and Noun Noun-Relative clauseWord
Order X90C_1Postnominal relative clausesNoun-Relative clause (NRel)
dominant Word Order X94A_1Order of Adverbial Subordinator and
Clause Initial subordinator wordWord Order X95A_4Relationship
between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adposition
and Noun Phrase VO and PrepositionsWord Order X96A_4Relationship
between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Relative
Clause and Noun VO and NRelWord Order X97A_4Relationship between
the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adjective and Noun VO
and NAdjWord Order X144H_4NegSVO OrderNo NegSVOWord Order
X144J_7SVNegO OrderNo SVNegOWord Order X144K_4SVONeg OrderNo
SVONegWord Order Slide 38 3.2 Cluster B (1): Head-final WO values
FeatureTitleValueDomain X29A_1Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number
Marking No subject person/number marking Morphology
X40A_1Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Verbal Inflection No
person markingNominal Categories X81A_1Order of Subject, Object and
Verb SOVWord Order X83A_1Order of Object and VerbOVWord Order
X85A_1Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase PostpositionsWord Order
X86A_1Order of Genitive and NounGenitive-NounWord Order
X95A_1Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the
Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase OV and PostpositionsWord Order
X97A_2Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the
Order of Adjective and Noun OV and NAdjWord Order X100A_1Alignment
of Verbal Person Marking NeutralSimple Clauses X102A_1Verbal Person
MarkingNo person markingSimple Clauses X103A_1Third Person Zero of
Verbal Person Marking No person markingSimple Clauses
X112A_1Negative MorphemesNegative affixSimple Clauses X126A_3'When'
ClausesDerankedComplex Sentences X143E_4Preverbal Negative
MorphemesNoneWord Order Slide 39 Cluster B (2): Head-final WO
values FeatureTitleValueDomain X143F_2Postverbal Negative Morphemes
[V-Neg]Word Order X144A_20Position of Negative Word With Respect to
Subject, Object, and Verb MorphNegWord Order X144P_4NegSOV OrderNo
NegSOVWord Order X144Q_4SNegOV OrderNo SNegOVWord Order
X144R_8SONegV OrderNo SONegVWord Order X144S_11SOVNeg
OrderNoSOVNegWord Order Slide 40 3.2 Cluster A classification
accuracies FeatureValueClassification accuracy 37A[definite word
distinct from demonstrative]:63% 81A[SVO]:92% 83A[VO]:92% 84A[VOX]:
Could not be evaluated, as 47% of languages lack data.
85A[Prepositions]:92% 86A[Noun-Genitive]:84% 90A[Noun-Relative
clause]:74% 90C[NRel dominant]: Could not be evaluated, as 41% of
lgs. lack data. 94A[Initial subordinator word]:81% 95A[VO and
Prepositions]:89% 96A[VO and NRel:76% 97A[VO and NAdj]:62% 144[No
NegSVO]: Could not be evaluated, as 70% of lgs lack data. 144J[No
SVNegO]: Could not be evaluated, as 68% of lgs lack data. 144K[No
SVONeg]: Could not be evaluated, as 68% of lgs lack data. 40 Slide
41 3.2 Cluster B classification accuracies (1) FeatureValue
Classification accuracy 29A:[No subject person/number marking]36%
40A:[No person marking]38% 81A[SOV]:92% 83A[OV]:92%
85A[Postpositions]:92% 86A[Genitive-Noun]:84% 95A[OV and
Postpositions]:89% 97A[OV and NAdj]:62% 41 Slide 42 3.2 Cluster B
classification accuracies (2) FeatureValue Classification accuracy
100A:[Neutral]38% 102A:[No Person Marking]38% 103A:[No Person
Marking]39% 112A:[Negative affix]58% 126A:[When clauses]42%
143E:[None]60% 143F:[V-Neg]62% 144A:[MorphNeg]61% 144P:Could not be
evaluated, as 58% of lgs lack data. 144Q:Could not be evaluated, as
58% of lgs lack data. 144R: Could not be evaluated, as 58% of lgs
lack data. 144S:Could not be evaluated, as 56% of lgs lack data. 42
Slide 43 3.2 Cluster C Contains by far the largest number of
feature values (107) Contains feature values in all subareas
(phonology, morphology, lexicon) Contains primarily unmarked
values: 1A2 Consonant inventory: Moderately small 1A3 Consonant
inventory: Average 17A1 Rhythm type: Trochaic 82A1 Order of subject
and verb: SV 43 Slide 44 3.2 Cluster D Residual values not in A-C
44 Slide 45 3.3 Assessment of the factor/cluster analysis
Constituent order features are completely dominant. Other features
often proposed for whole language classifications (e.g.
head/dependent marking) are absent from the highest order clusters.
Highest order cluster: entirely head-initial values Second order
cluster: mostly head-final values. Subset of constituent order
features in A, B contains: V OV- PC TP (A only) V Neg B only,
weak)Deranked when clauses (B only, weak) 45 Slide 46 4.
Significant CWOGs are limited to head-argument order 81AOrder of
subject, object, and verb92% 83AOrder of object and verb92%
85AOrder of adposition and NP92% 95AOrder of object and verb and P
and NP89% 86AOrder of genitive and noun84% 94AInitial subordinator
word]:81% 46 Slide 47 4. Significant CWOGs are limited to
head-argument order WOGs bearing on specifiers alone show up in C,
the unmarked cluster. X82A Order of Subject and VerbSV X88A Order
of Dem and NN-Dem 47 Slide 48 4. Significant CWOGs are limited to
head-argument order WOGs bearing on modifiers alone show up in C,
the unmarked cluster, or in both A and B. X87A Order of N-AdjN-Adj
(C) X97A Order of O-V and order of N-AdjN-Adj (A, B) 48 Slide 49 5.
Diachronic interpretation The most robust CWOGs are limited to
head- complement orders. These correspond to the well-known
relabeling-type reanalyses (V > P, N > P, V/P/N > C etc.).
The link between VP internal order and NP internal order is limited
to order of noun and genitive. This is consistent with the
hypothesis that reanalysis of nominalizations as verbal categories
is responsible for CWOGs involving nominal and verbal projections.
49 Slide 50 References Aristar, Anthony R. 1991. On diachronic
sources and synchronic patterns: An investigation into the origin
of linguistic universals. Language 67: 1-33. Biberauer, Theresa,
Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian 2012. A syntactic universal and
its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195-236 Chomsky, N. 1981.
Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrect: Foris. Cinque,
Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cysouw, M. 2005.
Quantitative methods in typology. In Altmann, G., Khler, R., and
Piotrowski, R. (eds.), Quantitative Linguistik: ein internationales
Handbuch, 554578. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cysouw, M. 2007. New
approaches to cluster analysis of typological indices. In Reinhard
Khler & Peter Grzbek (eds.), Exact Methods in the Study of
Language and Text. (Quantitative Linguistics 62), 61-76. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter. Dryer, M. 1988. Universals of negative position.
In Hammond, M., Moravcsik. E. and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in
Syntactic Typology, 93124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 50 Slide 51
References Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Why Statistical Universals are
better than Absolute Universals. Proceedings of the Chicago
Linguistic Society 33(2): 123-145. Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian
Word Order Correlations. Language 68.1: 81-138.. Dryer, M. 2011.
The evidence for word order correlations. Linguistic Typology 15.
335 380. Dryer, M. 2011. Relationship between the Order of Object
and Verb and the Order of Adjective and Noun. In Dryer, Matthew S.
& Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 97.
Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/97. Accessed on
2013-06-30.http://wals.info/chapter/97 Dryer, M. Nichols, J. and
Bickel. B. 2011. Locus of marking in the clause. In Dryer, M. &
Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 23. Available
online at http://wals.info/chapter/23. Accessed on
2013-07-2.http://wals.info/chapter/23 Dryer, M. & Haspelmath,
M. (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at
http://wals.info/ Accessed on 2012-07-02. Givon, Talmy. 1975.
Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. in C. Li, ed., Word
order and word order change, pp. 47-112. Austin: University of
Texas Press. Greenberg, J. 1963/6. Some Universals of Grammar with
Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J.
Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language, MIT Press. 51 Slide 52
References Hayashi, C. 1951. On the prediction of phenomena from
qualitative data and the quantification of qualitative data from
the mathematico-statistical point of view. Annals of the Institute
of Statistical Mathematics, 3(1), 69-98. Kayne, Richard.1994. The
antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard.1997.
The English Complementizer of. Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics, 1, 43-54.Ono, Yohei, Whitman, John, Yoshino, Ryozo,
and Hayashi, Fumi. 2013, under review. Investigating Latent
Interrelationships between Typological Features: A
factor/clustering analysis of feature values in WALS. Plank, Franz.
2003. The Universals Archive. Sprachwissenschaft, Universitt
Konstanz. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/ sprachbau.htm.
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Harm
Pinkster and Inge Genee (eds.). Unity in diversity. Papers
presented to Simon C. Dik on his fiftieth birthday. Dordrecht:
Foris, 229-241. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left
periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281337.
Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery.
In Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures,
vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104131. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 52 Slide 53 References Ueda, S. and Itoh, Y. 1995. The
Classification of Languages by the two Parameter Model for Word
Ordering Rule (in Japanese). Proceedings of the Institute of
Statistical Mathematics. 43, 2, 341-365. Ward, J. 1963.
Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of
the American Statistical Association 58, 236244. Whitman, John.
2008. The classification of constituent order generalizations and
diachronic explanation. 2008. In Good, J. (ed.), Language
Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53
