| Linguistic Universal |
Index for Linguistic |
Website Links For Linguistic |
Information AboutLinguistic Universal |
|
Terminology Linguists distinguish between two kinds of universals: absolute (opposite: '''statistical''', often called '''tendencies''') and '''implicational''' (opposite '''non-implicational'''). Absolute universals apply to every known language and are quite few in number; an example would be ''All languages have Pronoun s''. An implicational universal applies to languages which have a particular feature that is always accompanied by another feature, such as ''If a language has Trial Grammatical Number , it also must have Dual Grammatical Number ,'' while non-implicational universals just state the existence (or non-existence) of one particular feature. Also in contrast to absolute universals are tendencies, statements that may not be true for all languages, but nevertheless are far too common to be the result of chance. They also have implicational and non-implicational forms. An example of the latter would be ''The vast majority of languages have Nasal Consonant s''. However, most tendencies, like their universal counterparts, are implicational. For example, ''With overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are Postposition al''. Strictly speaking, a tendency is not a kind of universal, but exceptions to most statements called universals can be found. For example, Latin is an SOV language with Preposition s. Often it turns out that these exceptional languages are undergoing a shift from one type of language to another. In the case of Latin, its descendant Romance Languages switched to SVO , which is a much more common order among prepositional languages. Linguistic universals in syntax are sometimes held up as evidence for Universal Grammar (though Epistemological arguments are more common). Other explanations for linguistic universals have been proposed, for example that linguistic universals tend to be properties of language which aid communication. If a language were to lack one of these properties, it has been argued, it would probably soon evolve into a language having that property. In semantics In the domain of and Kuuk Thaayorre , lack a general term meaning 'body'. Rather, the highest level in the partonomy of body part terms would be the word for 'person'. Notes and references Notes # Note|Gbe}} Gbe languages like Ewe and Fon are examples of languages that lack true nasal consonants (see Gbe Languages#Nasality In Gbe ). # Note|NSM}} see for example Goddard & Wierzbicka (1994) and Goddard (2002). # Note|rosch}} Rosch et. al. (1976) # Note|enfield}} Enfield et. al. ''to appear'', 17 Bibliography
External links
|