Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:43:14.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The best-supported language universals refer to scalar patterns deriving from processing cost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Martin Haspelmath
Martin Haspelmath
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. [email protected]://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/staff/haspelmath/home.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conditional universals have always interested linguists more than unrestricted universals, which are often impossible to demonstrate empirically because categories cannot be defined in a cross-linguistically meaningful way. But deep dependencies have not been confirmed by more recent empirical research, and those universals with solid empirical support mostly relate to scalar patterns that can plausibly be related to processing cost.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 457 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, M. C. (2001) Atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. Basic Books.
Croft, W. (2000b) Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In: Approaches to the typology of word classes, ed. Vogel, P. & Comrie, B., pp. 65–102. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2003) Typology and universals, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008a) A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6.1:40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008b) Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In: The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Biberauer, T., pp. 75–107, Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2009) The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Plenary talk presented at the Morphology of the World's Languages conference, University of Leipzig, June 2009, Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct. W. Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (2001) Typology by the end of the 18th century. In: History of the language sciences, vol. 2, ed. Auroux, S., pp. 1399–1414. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar