Advertisement

An Empirical Test of the Agglutination Hypothesis

  • Martin Haspelmath
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 76)

Abstract

In this paper, I approach the agglutination-fusion distinction from an empirical point of view. Although the well-known morphological typology of languages (isolating, agglutinating, flexive/fusional, incorporating) has often been criticized as empty, the old idea that there are (predominantly) agglutinating and (predominantly) fusional languages in fact makes two implicit predictions. First, agglutination/fusion is characteristic of whole languages rather than individual constructions; second, the various components of agglutination/fusion correlate with each other. The (unstated, but widely assumed) Agglutination Hypothesis can thus be formulated as follows:

(i) First prediction: If a language is agglutinating/fusional in one area of its morphology (e.g. in nouns, or in the future tense), it shows the same type elsewhere.

(ii) Second prediction: If a language is agglutinating/fusional with respect to one of the three agglutination parameters (a-c) (and perhaps others), it shows the same type with respect to the other two parameters: (a) separation/cumulation, (b) morpheme invariance/morpheme variability, (c) affix uniformity/affix suppletion.

I report on a study of the nominal and verbal inflectional morphology of a reasonably balanced world-wide sample of 30 languages, applying a variety of\break measures for the agglutination parameters and determining whether they are cross-linguistically significant. The results do not confirm the validity of the Agglutination Hypothesis, and the current evidence suggests that “agglutination” is just one way of trying to capture the strangeness of non-Indo-European languages, which all look alike to Eurocentric eyes.

Keywords

Typology typological morphology inflection agglutination fusion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Typological distinctions in word formation. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III, ed. Timothy Shopen, 3–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bazell, Charles. 1958. Linguistic typology. In Five inaugural lectures, ed. Peter D. Strevens, 29–49. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bickel, Balthasar and Johanna Nichols. 2005. Inflectional synthesis of the verb. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew S. & Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard, 94–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  7. Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Typological aspects of Natural Morphology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35:51–70.Google Scholar
  9. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. Morphological typology and first language acquisition: Some mutual challenges. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology: On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4) Catania, 21–23 September 2003, ed. Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi and Sergio Scalise, 7–20. (http:// mmm.lingue.unibo.it)Google Scholar
  10. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Genealogical language list. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew S. & Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard, 584–644. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, Joseph. 1954 [1960]. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In Method and Perspective in Anthropology: Papers in Honor of Wilson D. Wallis, ed. Robert F. Spencer, 192–220. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Reprinted in: International Journal of American Linguistics 26 (1960): 178–94.]Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, Joseph. 1974. Language typology: A historical and analytic overview. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  14. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1963. Sproget: En introduktion. København: Berlingske Forlag. (German translation: Die Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968)Google Scholar
  16. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1822/1985. Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung, reprinted in: über die Sprache: Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Jürgen Trabant, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836. über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluβ auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechtes. Reprinted.Google Scholar
  18. Hyman, Larry. 2001. Tonal systems. In Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (HSK), vol. II, ed. Martin Haspelmath et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1367–1380.Google Scholar
  19. Krupa, Viktor. 1965. On quantification in typology. Linguistics 12: 31–36.Google Scholar
  20. Müller, Friedrich Max. 1871. Lectures on the science of language. 2nd. Ed. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  21. Plank, Frans. 1986. Paradigm size, morphological typology and universal economy. Folia Linguistica 20: 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plank, Frans. 1991. Of abundance and scantiness in inflection: a typological prelude. In Paradigms: the economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Plank, Frans. 1998. The co-variation of phonology with morphology and syntax. Linguistic Typology 2.2:195–230.Google Scholar
  24. Plank, Frans. 1999. Split morphology: How agglutination and flexion mix. Linguistic Typology 3.3: 279–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. Agglutination vs. flection. In Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (HSK), vol. I, ed. Martin Haspelmath et al., 669–678. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Pöchtrager, Markus A. & Bodó, Csanád & Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Schweiger, Teresa. 1998. One some inflectional properties of the agglutinating type illustrated from Finnish, Hungarian and Turkish inflection. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 62-63: 57–92.Google Scholar
  27. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  28. Schlegel, August Wilhelm von. 1818. Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris: Librairie Grecque-latine-allemande.Google Scholar
  29. Schlegel, Friedrich von. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer.Google Scholar
  30. Schleicher, August. 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer übersicht. Bonn: H. B. König.Google Scholar
  31. Silnitsky, George. 1993. Typological indices and language classes: a quantitative study. Glottometrika 14: 139–160.Google Scholar
  32. Skalička, Vladimír. 1951. Das Erscheinungsbild der Sprachtypen. In Skalička, Vladimír. 1979. Typologische Studien. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 21–58.Google Scholar
  33. Slobin, Dan. 1997. The origins of grammaticizable notions. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 5: Expanding the Contexts, ed. Dan Slobin, 265–323. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Testelets, Yakov G. 2001. Russian works on linguistic typology in the 1960s–1990s. In Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. I, ed. Martin Haspelmath et al., 306–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Vance, Timothy J. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  37. Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Haspelmath
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre AnthropologieLeipzig

Personalised recommendations