OUTLINE Language Universals -Definition -Why do language universals exist -Importance of language universals Two Major Approaches Taken to the Linguistic Universals -Universal Grammar -Typological Universals -Typological Universals vs. Universal Grammar Language Typology -Language Typology and Typological Universals Classification of Universals -Implicational vs. Non-implicational -Absolute Universals vs. Tendencies Markedness The Accessibility Hierarchy Types of Typological Universals Online Resources Critique Typological Universals & SLA Studies focusing on markedness -Markedness differential hypothesis (Eckman, 1977) -Accessibility Hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie, 1977) Universal generalizations and Interlanguage Grammar Universals as Constraints on Interlanguage Grammar Universals as Strategies for Intervention in Interlanguage Grammar Functional Typology (Aspect Hypothesis) Falsifiability OUTLINE OUTLINE

Okay lets start with some kind of mental gymnastic with philosophy Okay lets start with some kind of mental gymnastic with philosophy. Do you know who is this man? Who is plato? Plato made a distinction between particular and universal. According to him particular is something specific while universal is quality that can be had by more than one specific thing at a time He found out that many particular things can belong to one and the same species or have one and the same nature, kind, type, essence. If they belong to one and same thing they have an universal quality. For example, there are many particular trees such as oak, palm, apple, orange etc but in the end they all are trees.

Definition of Language Universals statements of what is possible and impossible in languages (Finegan, 2011). What is common to all languages (Mc Laughlin, 1989) LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS So, what comes to your mind when we say language universals? Language universals are statements of what is possible and impossible in languages. the features that are common to all human languages in the world

Why do language universals exist? Original Language Hypothesis all of the languages in the world derive historically from the same language Universals and Perception languages are symptoms of how all humans perceive the world and conduct verbal interactions Acquisition and Processing Explanations psychological explanations that have no physical basis. Social Explanations basis on cognition and others reflect the fact that language is a social tool. Acquisition and Processing Explanations: such as word order are necessary because it makes it easier for the child to acquire language.  Social Explanations: For example there are 1st and 2nd person pronouns as default, this is because language is used by two people during face-to-face cognition. Finegan, 2011

Importance of Language Universals Universals state what is possible in human language and what is not. They help us to understand brain and principles that govern interpersonal communication in all cultures. They help us to understand what in the human brain and social organization of everyday life enables people to communicate through language.   language universals are of an important value in the study of language Finegan, 2011

Two Major Approaches Taken to the Linguistic Universals rationalism empiricism There have been a number of different approaches taken to the study of linguistic universals in second language research Scholars examine how a language behaves and then posit generalizations that can later be checked against other languages Surveying worlds’ languages and then arriving at a conclusion about what might constitute a universal Noam Chomsky Joseph H. Greenberg

LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY VS. UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR Theory driven Data driven Abstract principles that apply to all languages Less abstract Generally derived by deduction Based on readily observable data In-depth analysis of the properties of a language Examination of the surface features of a wide range of languages (Van Patten & Benati, 2010; McLaughlin, 1989)

Greenberg and his followers LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY analyzing data from a representative sample of world’s languages in order to extract universal patternings Greenberg and his followers To what extent different languages are structured according to universal principles Greenberg and his followers begins by There is a general agreement among linguists that language universals exist but the question is… Typological universals tries to answer this question but there are limitations of this approach which i will mention at the end of my presentation (McLaughlin, 1989, p. 83)

LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY The study of patterns exhibited in languages worldwide (Gass & Selinker, 2008) A field of study in which patterns that exist among the languages of the world are researched and the possible variation found in human languages described (McLaughlin, 1989) The specification of language universals based on discerned patterns The limits define the universals Typological universals stems from the study of the patterns exhibited in languages worldwide The specification of language universals is based on discerned patterns in this variation, the limits of variation defining the universals

LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS AND LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY Complementary to each other What is common to all languages Variation that exists between languages Thus, the study of language universals and the study of language typology are complementary to reach other. The study of universals focuses on what is common to all languages and the study of typology focuses on the variation that exist between languages

LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY «In developing a typology, researchers examine actual representations of a particular parameter to determine whether the various logical possibilities are found across languages.» (McLaughlin, 1989, p. 83) The complementarity between the study of language universals and the study of language typology can be illustrated by an example.

VSO without prepositions Non-VSO with prepositions Universal: languages with VSO basic word order have prepositions (Greenberg, 1974) VSO with prepositions VSO without prepositions Non-VSO with prepositions Non-VSO without prepositions Let’s take a look at Greenberg’s universal There are four logical possibilities In the figure there are languages that fall into first, third and fourth categories. But there are no languages in the second category. Thus, the typological endevour – aimed at assigning languages to different types – leads to the establishment of a universal.

CLASSIFICATION OF UNIVERSALS Typological Universals Based on the presence of property Non-implicational universals Implicational universals Based on exceptions Absolute universals Tendencies (McLaughlin, 1989; Comrie, 1981 as cited in McLaughlin, 1989) There have been a number of classification purposed for universals but the most common ones are based on the presence of the property and based on exceptions

Non-implicational vs. Implicational Universals Present or absent in natural languages without reference to any other properties of the given langauge Languages have vowels (Mc Laughlin, 1989, p. 84) No reference is made to any other properties that must or must not be present

Non-implicational vs. Implicational Universals Relate the presence of one property to the presence of some other property In languages with prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun, while in languages with postpositions it almost always precedes nouns (Greenberg, 1963, p. 78)

Absolute Universals vs. Tendencies without exceptions Tendencies with exceptions Nonimplicational and implicational universals may be absolute universals or tendencies

Absolute Universals vs. Tendencies Tendency Non-implicational/ Implicational All languages have vowels. Absolute Non-implicational All languages have nasal consonants. (some Salishan languages) If a language has a VSO as its basic word order, it has prepositions. If a language has SOV basic word order, it will have postpositions. (Persian is SOV with prepositions) McLaughlin, 1989

Markedness An observation of the implicational relationship between categories (Mc Laughlin, 1989) A linguistic concept related to how common or typical a feature is (Van Patten & Benati, 2010) An important concept related to the implicational relationship is markedness. Markedness is

A B HOWEVER Markedness A is more marked than B Implicational Relationships A B HOWEVER However, it is not possible to define typological markedness on the basis of implicational relationships, because there are no two categories, A and B, that co-exist in the language and have an implicational relationship. In such cases, markedness is based on frequency (McLaughlin, 1989). Whenever the existence of a category A in a language implies the existence of category B, A is considered more marked that B. However, it is not possible to define typological markedness on the basis of implicational relationships, because there are no two categories, A and B, that co-exist in the language and have an implicational relationship. In such cases, markedness is based on frequency (McLaughlin, 1989).

Markedness Something that is more common or ubiquitous is considered less marked or unmarked, while something less common or less natural is considered marked or more marked. Markedness can be used to make crosslinguistic comparisons (what happens around the world with languages) or what happens within a single language Something unmarked or less marked may be considered as the default form of the feature (Van Patten & Benati, 2010).

Tom is the man who studies SLA. Markedness Tom is the man who studies SLA. Relative clause In the world’s languages, there are relative clauses such as Tom is the man who studies SLA, with who studies SLA as the relative clause. There are various types of relative clauses depending on the relationship of the relative marker to the verb

Subject relative clause: Tom is the man who studied SLA Markedness Subject relative clause: Tom is the man who studied SLA Object relative clause: SLA is the subject that Tom studied Indirect object relative clause: Tom is the guy who I gave the SLA book to Object of preposition clause: Tom is the guy who I studied SLA with Genitive clause: Tom is the guy whose SLA book I borrowed Object of comparison clause: Tom is the guy who I am taller than More marked According to survey of world languages, subject relative clauses are the most common and are the least marked. Object of comparisons are the least common and are the most marked

Markedness Markedness has been shown to be relevant to both L1 and L2 acquisition.

The Accessibility Hierarchy Keenan and Comrie (1977) An example of chain of implicational universals: if a language can relativize on position n, then necessarily it can also relativize on position n-1 Recent work on language universals has uncovered a number of areas where one property can be described as more marked than some other property. One that is particularly relevant to research on second language learning is the Accessibility Hierarchy for relativization proposed by Keenan and Comrie They argued on cross-linguistic grounds that the degree of difficulty of relativizing on a particular noun phrase proceeds from top to bottom along the hierarchy in table Thus subjects are predicted to be easier to relativize than direct objects and so on down the hierarchy. McLaughlin, 1989

The Accessibility Hierarchy If a language can relativize on a given preposition on the Accessibility Hierarchy, then it must be able to relativize on all positions higher on the hierarchy, because a position lower on the hierarchy cannot be more accessible then one higher. For each position on the Accessibility Hierarchy, there is some possible human language that can relativize on that position but on no lower position, because each position on the hierarchy is thought to define a potential cut-off point. There are two sub-parts to the hypothesis McLaughlin, 1989

The Accessibility Hierarchy The Accessibility Hierarchy attempts to characterize the various types of relative clause construction among different languages. Researchers have argued that the construction of a noun phrase for relativization depends on its grammatical role. Van Patten & Benati, 2010

The Accessibility Hierarchy The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy indicates that the easiest relative clause construction is when the relative pronoun is the subject of relative clause. A specific hierarchy is proposed: These sentences show that the focus of attention in the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy is on the grammatical role of the relative pronoun no matter the role taken by thr head noun in the main clause Van Patten & Benati, 2010

TYPES OF TYPOLOGICAL UNIVERSALS Word order typology Transivity typology Syntactic typology Word classes Voice typology Morphological typology Case-marking typology Grammatical relations typology Semantic typology Person marking Typology of tense, aspect and modality systems Typology of phonological systems Song, 2013

Word order typology In languages with prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun, while in languages with postpositions it almost always precedes noun (Greenberg, 1963) In languages with prepositions such as french, russian, italian noun representing what is being possessed preceding the possessor In languages with postpositions such as turkish, prepositions follow the noun

The leg of the table My friend’s dog Word order typology Possessed precedes possessor Preposition follow the noun IMPLICATIONAL TENDENCY English is somewhat exceptional in that it allows not only the predicted order but also the unpredicted Word order

Implicational absolute universal Word order typology Languages with dominant verb-subject-object (VSO) order are always prepositional (Greenberg, 1963) Implicational absolute universal

World Atlas of Language Structures http://wals.info/ Online Sources World Atlas of Language Structures http://wals.info/ The Language Index https://languageindex.online.uni-marburg.de/

Wide range of languages CRITIQUE Wide range of languages Representative sample of human languages -> how is one to know that the sample is sufficiently large and varied to include examples of all the kinds of structures found in human languages?

Even if the sample could be shown to be representative, there remains the problem of demonstrating the empirical validity of putative linguistic universals The Notion of tendency

It is undeniable that typology has been able to produce theoretical tools in the form of implicational generalizations, which provide hypotheses for the description of learner languages (Ramat, 2009)