1 / 29

Typology:

Typology:. (competing) motivations МД. А.Е. Кибрик. От таксономической к объяснительной ‘ Как ’ типология -> ‘ Почему ’ типология Объяснение следует искать вне собственно языковой структуры отличается от объяснений через «обобщение»

jonathanaandrews
Télécharger la présentation

Typology:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Typology: (competing) motivations МД

  2. А.Е. Кибрик • От таксономической к объяснительной • ‘Как’ типология -> ‘Почему’ типология • Объяснение следует искать вне собственно языковой структуры • отличается от объяснений через «обобщение» • Для Кибрика – «обстоятельства» усвоения и использования языка

  3. Cristofaro’s ‘universals’ • Universals of language proper • Functional universals • =external motivations • Conceptual space (and its structure)

  4. Payne’s leaf • Why is the leaf flat? • It’s done so • It’s father was so (it was born so) • … • It maximizes its surface for photosynthesis • Functionalism is biology

  5. Кибрик 1992: on alignment • Underlying principles: • Economy • Dicrimination • Semanticity

  6. Cristofaro 2012 • Functional universals (=motivations) • Iconicity • Markedness • Processing ease

  7. Croft 2003 • (Competing) motivations • Processing ease • Frequency of use • …

  8. Inventory of motivations • Iconicity • Economy/Markedness/Processing ease • Economy • Markedness • Frequency • Processing ease • Processing ease • Anthropo-/egocentricity

  9. Кибрик 1992: on alignment

  10. Motivations confront GG • Cf.: processing ease, frequency and other external motivations • Hawkins: “Chomsky … has argued that grammars are ultimately autonomousand independent of performance factors, and are determined by an innate U(niversal) G(rammar)” • Cristofaro: Chomsky insists that languages are the way they are not because of external reasons (pressions) but because they are the way they are (inherited UG) • Doris Payne’s leaf

  11. x-centricity • anthropo- • animacy hierarchy? • probably, related to salience (see Comrie on markedness and DuBois on frequency below) • ego- • the central place all shifters have in human language? • person hierarchies (e.g. clusivity)

  12. Iconicity • Givon: “All other thing being equal, a coded experience is easier to store, retrieve and communicate if the code is maximally isomorphic to the experience” • underlying performance

  13. Economy (=markedness?) Cristofaro: • if conceptual situations that are less frequent at the discourse level are associated with zero-marking, so will conceptual situations that are more frequent at the discourse level • this is arguably because more frequent conceptual situations are easier to recognize and therefore need not be expressed overtly • an instance of the general economic principle whereby speakers do not express information overtly whenever they can afford to do so (*Grice) • Underlying performance (processing ease)

  14. Croft 2003 “Typology and Universals” links the discussion of economy and iconicity to the notion of markedness • marked category receives not less marking, allows for less suppletion/allomorphy/irregularities, distinguishes less cross-cutting categories, and occurs less often (than the unmarked one)

  15. Croft 2003 (paradigmatic) ‘behavorial potential’ ‘structural coding’ (morphological)

  16. Croft: economy vs. iconicity • Iconicity is understood as “syntagmatic isomorphism” (Hyman): the correspondence between meaning and form in a syntagmatic relation • Economy is understood (primarily) as amount of morphological material

  17. Croft: economy vs. iconicity How to prove their (co-)existence of competing economy and iconicity? • There are no patterns that are not motivated by either • rare empty morphemes (oFR) jeo ne di -> je ne dis pas -> je dis pas de l’eau -> dlo (HC)

  18. Croft: economy vs. iconicity

  19. Croft: economy vs. iconicity • Iconicity is understood as “paradigmatic isomorphism” (Hyman): the correspondence between meaning and form in a pradigmatic relation • Lexical: synonymy, monosemy, homonymy, polysemy Polysemy! recurrent similarity of form must reflect similarity in meaning Iconicity Meaning Form Economy

  20. Croft: economy vs. iconicity

  21. Croft: markedness and frequency • The unmarked tokens will occur at least as frequently as marked tokens (Greenberg) • Connects properties of language structure to properties of language use

  22. Croft: markedness and frequency • How is this connected to economy? • Zipf’s law: more frequent tokens are shorter • DuBois: Grammars code best what speakers do most • Non-iconic economical mappings (cumulation, suppletion; homonymy, polysemy) are found in frequent tokens • What about behavorial?

  23. Why compete? • If functionalists are right in that linguitic structures are ‘externally’ motivated, why do languages have different structures? • Competing motivations • Different motivations are differently strong; they all have chances – though different chances – to win

  24. Cristofaro’s points • Contra e.g. Kibrik, motivations do not affect language acquisition or spread or use but only language change (creation of novel constructions) • motivations do not pertain to language use but to language change; explains effect of vestiges • Competing motivations explain cross-linguistic variation • Existence of competing motivations explains not only existence of relatively well represented types (ergative vs. accusative) which can be explained away by ‘parameters’ of GG but also the fact that (almost) no universal is absolute: all are statistical

  25. Back to universals: • Indeed,in order for non-implicational and implicational universals to be part of Universal Grammar, they have to beexceptionless, because by definition Universal Grammar involves the same components for all speakers. Yet veryfew, if any, typological universals are free from exceptions

  26. Hawkins 2003 • preferred word orders inlanguages that permit choices are generallythose that are productively grammaticalizedin languages with fixed orders • Keenan-ComrieAccessibility Hierarchy is supportedboth by processing ease and frequencydata from performance, and by grammaticaldata in the form of cut-off points for relativization

  27. Hawkins 2003 Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis: • Grammars have conventionalized syntactic structures in proportion to their degree of preference inperformance, as evidenced by patterns of selection in corpora and by ease of processing in psycholinguisticexperiments • In order to testthe PGCH we need to examine variation data both across and within languages. If patterns in the one (ingrammars) match patterns in the other (in performance), the hypothesis will be supported • Should also be supported by PsyLing evidence

  28. Hawkins 2012 • Performance based principles (some of) • Minimize form: • as in number hierarchy, oblique cases etc (correlation between grammaticalization and frequency of use; link to the notion of markedness) • Minimize domain: • as in relativization: accessibility, gapping (correlation between grammaticalization and frequency of use)

  29. Summary • Kibrik • shifting towards explanatory typology • Haiman • iconicity (in a very abstract sense) • Croft • markedness (melted iconicity and economy) • Hawkins • focus on specific models of performance-grammar correspondance • Cristofaro – an overview

More Related