Typology 4 Universals II: Hawkins, Dryer
Typology 4 Universals II: Hawkins, Dryer
Typology 4 Universals II: Hawkins, Dryer
th
7 Summer School of the German Linguistic Society/ Walter Bisang, Mainz
7. Sommerschule der DGfS [email protected]
Typology 4
___________________________________________________________________________
4. John A. Hawkins
4.1. Hawkin’s (1983) sample and his language types
Hawkin’s (1983) is based on three samples:
- Greenberg’s 30 language sample
- Greenberg’s expanded sample (142 languages)
- His own sample, which he calls Expanded Sample and consists of 336 languages
The present study is based on a language sample of some 350 languages, taken
from all the major language families of the globe ... This sample has incorporated
Greenberg’s (1966) samples as a starting point, and has considerably expanded
them. The particular emphasis within these languages is on approximately one
dozen word orders consisting of pairs of modifier + head: adjective and noun,
direct object and verb, preposition and NP, etc. For five of these pairs I have data
from all 350 languages (adjective and noun, genitive and noun,
preposition/postposition and noun phrase, object and verb, and subject and verb).
For the remainder (demonstrative determiner and noun, relative clause and noun,
etc.), I have data from between one-third and one-half of the sample. The same
methodological problems apply in this work which apply in all large-scale
typological studies: Only a limited number of properties (here word order) can be
studied; the grammars upon which we rely are not always dependable; the
categories that we study are not always readily comparable across languages ...;
and some word orders exhibit variant orders. (Hawkins 1983: 9)
Because Hawkin’ s operates with multitermed universals, he can only use absolute
implicational universals. If statistical implicational universals were combined into
implicational chains (multitermed universals) the multiplication of their probability rate would
soon lead into statistical irrelevance.
This hierarchy reflects the relative instability with which the five modifiers of the
noun (Demonstrative, Numeral, Adjective, Genitive, Relative Clause) keep
modified-modifier word order. It states that Dem and Num are more unstable than
Adj, Adj is more unstable than Gen and Gen is more unstable than Rel. Thus, if in a
prepositional language, NP structure deviates from the modified-modifier word
order, it is Dem and/or Num that occur first in the prenominal position. If they are in
the prenominal position the next category that can occur prenominally is Adj, etc.
This yields the following hierarchy (cf. handout 3, § 1.2):
(33) Rel < Gen < Adj < {Dem, Num}
Universal (XIV)/Hierarchy (33) predicts that only 7 of the logically possible 32 (=
25) structural word-order types are attested:
4
1. Prep & NDem & NNum & NA & NG & NRel 0 modifiers preposed: N1
2a. Prep DemN NNum NA NG NRel 1 modifier preposed: N2
2b. Prep NDem NumN NA NG NRel 1 modifier preposed: N2
3. Prep DemN NumN NA NG NRel 2 modifiers preposed: N3
4. Prep DemN NumN AN NG NRel 3 modifiers preposed: N4
5. Prep DemN NumN AN GN NRel 4 modifiers preposed: N5
6. Prep DemN NumN AN GN RelN 5 modifiers preposed: N6
Table 9: The 7 word-order types in terms of the Prepositional Noun Modifier Hierarchy (Hawkins 1983:75)
5. Matthew S. Dryer
The aim of Dryer’ s (1992) studies:
- What are the pairs of elements whose order correlates with that of the verb and object? (cf. §5.1)
- Why do these correlations exist? (cf. §5.2)
For this purpose, none of the criteria postulated by Hawkins (absolute, implicational,
multitermed universals) is necessary. What is needed for analysing the above question is a
sound statistical method.
Africa Eurasia SE-As & Ocean Austr-Neu Gui N-Am S-Am Average
OV & Po 15 26 5 17 25 19 107
OV & Pr 3 3 0 1 0 0 7
VO & Po 4 1 0 0 3 4 12
VO & Pr 16 8 15 6 20 5 70
Table 10: The order of adposition and NP in correlation with VO and OV (Dryer 1992: 83)
Since the type OV & Po invariably dominates over OV & Pr through all the six large areas and
since VO & Pr does the same with regard to VO & Po, the two parameters of VO/OV and
Pr/Po covary, that is, they are a correlation pair.
Pr NP NP Po
The correlation pair <Adposition, NP> is consistent through all six large areas. Are there
also correlation pairs which are to some extent inconsistent?
Africa Eurasia SE-As & Ocean Austr-Neu Gui N-Am S-Am Average
OV & RelN 5 11 2 2 3 3 26
OV & NRel 9 5 2 6 12 3 37
VO & RelN 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
VO & NRel 21 8 12 3 11 5 60
From looking at the first two lines in table 11 (OV & RelN, OV & NRel) we may conclude
that the position of Rel relative to N does not form a correlation pair with VO/OV. However, if
we look at the second two lines (VO & RelN & VO & NRel) we observe a very strong and
areally consistent preference of NRel in VO languages (60 genera against 1, the language with
VO & RelN is Chinese). The statistical significance of these findings can be shown as follows:
Africa Eurasia SE-As & Ocean Austr-Neu Gui N-Am S-Am Average
OV 0.36 0.69 0.50 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.42
VO 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
With this method, Dryer (1992) finds the following correlation pairs:
VERB PATTERNER OBJECT PATTERNER EXAMPLE
(1) verb object ate + the sandwich
(2) verb subject (there) entered + a tall man
(3) adposition NP on + the table
(4) copula verb predicate is + a teacher
(5) ’want’ VP wants + to see Mary
(6) tense/aspect auxiliary verb VP has + eaten dinner
(7) negative auxiliary VP
(8) complementizer S that + John is sick
(9) question particle S
(10) adverbialer subordinator S because + Bob has left
(11) article N’ the + tall man
6
As it turns out, the Head-Dependent Theory makes wrong predictions concerning the question
of what is a correlation pair and what is not. The Branching Direction Theory does not.
Africa Eurasia SE-As & Ocean Austr-Neu Gui N-Am S-Am Average
OV & AdjN 7 24 2 4 10 8 55
OV & NAdj 18 4 5 15 18 14 74
VO & AdjN 3 6 4 5 19 3 40
VO & NAdj 25 3 12 2 8 5 55
Table 16: Order of noun and adjective (Dryer 1992: 95)
Africa Eurasia SE-As & Ocean Austr-Neu Gui N-Am S-Am Average
OV 0.28 0.86 0.29 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.39
VO 0.11 0.67 0.25 0.71 0.70 0.38 0.47
Table 17: Proportions of genera containing AdjN languages as opposed to NAdj
(Dryer 1992: 95)
Controversial pairs (correlation pairs where head and dependent are controversial)
From the perspective of the Head-Dependent Theory, the noncorrelation pairs should also turn
out to be correlation pairs. Given the different status of phrasality in the correlation pairs and
the noncorrelation pairs, the BDT predicts the above differences:
On (14) vs. (A):
relative clauses are phrasal categories that are fully recursive, adjectives are not.
On (15) vs. (C):
The standard of comparison is phrasal (= object patterner), the intensifier is not.
On (16) vs. (D):
The PP is phrasal (= object patterner), the negative particle is not.
Different word order accross languages is the result of two different types of features which
need to be checked in a tree structure of the following type (cf. next page) and thus trigger
movement.
As we have seen in handout 1 (pp. 3f.), features (grammatical features) need to be ckecked
before spell-out for a derivation to converge (not to crash). The basic idea is that there are two
different types of features:
- Strong features: the lexical unit moves together with ist phonological features
- Weak features: only grammatical and logical/semantic features move, the
phonological features remain in situ.
Verbal features are checked at a V adjoined to a functional head, nominal features are checked
at a DP in the specifier position of AgrP (maybe TP).
(37) CP
C’
C AgrSP
AgrS’
AgrS TP
T’
T vP
DP v’
v AgrOP
DP AgrO’
AgrO VP
DP V’
9
V DP
The combination of weak and strong nominal and verbal features in Agr and T allows for a
formal explanation of word-order types. The number of word possible word orders is much
larger than the six options with S, V, and O. From the formalist perspective, the six basic
word-order types in terms of Greenberg (1966) are only epiphenomenal. They are the
product of innate properties of UG which are much more complex.
An example:
In English, Agr features are weak. Thus, object-DPs do not move before spell-out and we get
OV. The T-features for subjects, however, are strong. It is for that reason that the subject DP
needs to move before spell-out and we get SV. The verb does not move before spell-out. Thus,
in English adverbs such as often occur in front of V, whereas in French souvent ‚often‘ occurs
after the verb.
(38) Elmer lave souvent son chat.
Elmer washes often his cat
(39) Elmer often washes his cat. (Marantz 1995: 372)
References
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. "The Greenbergian word order correlations." Language 68,81-138.
Hawkins, J.A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. "The
Greenbergian word order correlations." Language 68,81-138.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. "Bare phrase structure", in: Webelhuth, Gert. ed. Government & Binding Theory and the
Minimalist Program, 383 - 439. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marantz, Alec. 1995. "The Minimalist Program", in: Webelhuth, Gert. ed. Government & Binding Theory and the
Minimalist Program, 351 - 382. Oxford: Blackwell.