Linguistic typology
 |
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2010) |
Linguistic typology is a subfield of linguistics that studies and classifies languages according to their structural features. Its aim is to describe and explain the common properties and the structural diversity of the world's languages. It includes three subdisciplines: qualitative typology, which deals with the issue of comparing languages and within-language variance; quantitative typology, which deals with the distribution of structural patterns in the world’s languages; and theoretical typology, which explains these distributions.
Contents |
[edit] Qualitative typology
Qualitative typology develops cross-linguistically viable notions or types which provide a framework for the description and comparison of individual languages. A few examples appear below.
[edit] Typological systems
[edit] Subject–verb–object positioning
One set of types reflects the basic order of subject, verb, and direct object in sentences:
- Subject–verb–object
- Subject–object–verb
- Verb–subject–object
- Verb–object–subject
- Object–subject–verb
- Object–verb–subject
These labels usually appear abbreviated as "SVO" and so forth, and may be called "typologies" of the languages to which they apply.
Some languages split verbs into an auxiliary and an infinitive or participle, and put the subject and/or object between them. For instance, German ("Ich habe einen Fuchs im Wald gesehen" - *"I have a fox in-the woods seen"), Dutch ("Hans vermoedde dat Jan Piet Marie zag leren zwemmen" - *"Hans suspected that Jan Piet Marie saw teach swim") and Welsh ("Mae'r gwirio sillafu wedi'i gwblhau" - *"Is the checking spelling after its to complete"). In this case, linguists base the typology on the non-analytic tenses (i.e. those sentences in which the verb is not split) or on the position of the auxiliary. German is thus SVO in main clauses and Welsh is VSO (and preposition phrases would go after the infinitive).
Many typologists classify both German and Dutch as V2 languages, as the verb invariantly occurs as the second element of a full clause.
Some languages allow varying degrees of freedom in their constituent order that pose a problem for their classification within the subject–verb–object schema. To define a basic constituent order type in this case, one generally looks at frequency of different types in declarative affirmative main clauses in pragmatically neutral contexts, preferably with only old referents. Thus, for instance, Russian is widely considered an SVO language, as this is the most frequent constituent order under such conditions—all sorts of variations are possible, though, and occur in texts. In many inflected languages, such as Russian, Latin, and Greek, departures from the default word-orders are permissible but usually imply a shift in focus, an emphasis on the final element, or some special context. In the poetry of these languages, the word order may also shift freely to meet metrical demands. Additionally, freedom of word order may vary within the same language—for example, formal, literary, or archaizing varieties may have different, stricter, or more lenient constituent-order structures than an informal spoken variety of the same language.
On the other hand, when there is no clear preference under the described conditions, the language is considered to have "flexible constituent order" (a type unto itself).
An additional problem is that in languages without living speech communities, such as Latin, Hellenic Greek, and Old Church Slavonic, linguists have only written evidence, perhaps written in a poetic, formalizing, or archaic style that mischaracterizes the actual daily use of the language. The daily spoken language of a Sophocles or a Cicero might have exhibited a different or much more regular syntax than their written legacy indicates.
[edit] Morphosyntactic alignment
Another common classification distinguishes nominative–accusative languages and ergative–absolutive ones. In a language with cases, the classification depends on whether the subject of an intransitive verb has the same case as the agent(A) or the patient(P) of a transitive verb. If a language has no cases, but the word order AVP or PVA, then a classification may reflect whether the subject of an intransitive verb appears on the same side as the agent or the patient of the transitive verb.
Many languages show mixed accusative and ergative behaviour (for example: ergative morphology marking the verb arguments, on top of an accusative syntax). Other languages (called "active languages") have two types of intransitive verbs—some of them ("active verbs") join the subject in the same case as the agent of a transitive verb, and the rest ("stative verbs") join the subject in the same case as the patient. Yet other languages behave ergatively only in some contexts (this "split ergativity" is usually based on the grammatical person of the arguments or on the tense/aspect of the verb). For example, only some verbs in Georgian behave this way, and, as a rule, only while using the perfective (aorist).
[edit] Quantitative typology
Quantitative typology deals with the distribution and co-occurrence of structural patterns in the languages of the world. Two major types of non-chance distribution are preferences (for instance, absolute and implicational universals, semantic maps, hierarchies) and correlations (for instance, areal patterns, such as with a Sprachbund).
[edit] Theoretical typology
 |
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. |
[edit] Bibliography
- Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn. ISBN 0226114333.
- Croft, W. (2002). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 2nd ed. ISBN 0521004993.
- Cysouw, M. (2005). Quantitative methods in typology. Quantitative linguistics: an international handbook, ed. by Gabriel Altmann, Reinhard Köhler and R. Piotrowski. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3110155788.
- Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226580571.
- Nichols, J. (2007). What, if anything, is typology? Linguistic Typology. Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 231–238, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.017, July 2007
- Song, J.J. (2001). Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow and London: Pearson Education (Longman). ISBN 0582312205.
- Song, J.J. (ed.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928125-1
- Whaley, L.J. (1997). Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Newbury Park: Sage. ISBN 080395963X.
[edit] External links
- Association for Linguistic Typology
- Plank, F. Themes in Typology: Basic Reading List. [1]
- Bickel, B. (2001). What is typology? - a short note. [2]
- Bickel, B. (2005). Typology in the 21st century: major developments. [3]
- Linguistic typologyPDF (275 KiB) , chapter 9 of Halvor Eifring & Rolf Theil: Linguistics for Students of Asian and African Languages
- World Atlas of Language Structures
