What Linguistic Universals Can Be True Of

  • Aditi Lahiri
  • Frans Plank
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 76)

Abstract

Universals in linguistics were traditionally intended to be true of languages: “for all languages, p” or “for all languages, if p then q”. Our contention, by contrast, is that many universals have a narrower scope than languages as such, or mental lexicons-and-grammars as such. Linguistic universals are not axiomatically to be conceived of as universals of language: it is only derivatively—namely if universals are true of all parts of each language and of all representations of forms-in-constructions of each language—that this is what they may amount to. Only very basic organising principles of lexicons and grammars should really be expected to make their influence felt pervasively, over all parts and all representations.

Keywords

Adjective order asymmetry coronal gender infixation markedness universals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albright, Adam. 2000. The productivity of infixation in Lakhota. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. Blevins, Juliette. 1999. Untangling Leti infixation. Oceanic Linguistics 38: 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broselow, Ellen and John J. McCarthy. 1983/84. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3: 25–88.Google Scholar
  4. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, eds. Guglielmo Cinque et al., 85–110. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, George N. and Elisabeth V. Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Crowhurst, Megan J. 1998. Um infixation and prefixation in Toba Batak. Language 74: 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dresher, B. Elan and Xi Zhang. 2007. Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 50: 45–82.Google Scholar
  8. Eulitz, Carsten and Aditi Lahiri. 2004. Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedrich, Claudia, Carsten Eulitz, and Aditi Lahiri. 2006. Not every pseudoword disrupts word recognition: An ERP study. Behavioral and Brain Functions 2: 1–36. (http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/2/1/36)
  10. Ghini, Mirco. 2001. Asymmetries in the Phonology of Miogliola. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Green, Thomas Michael. 1999. A lexicographic study of Ulwa. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. (http://www.slaxicon.org/papers/thesis.pdf)
  12. Hetzron, Robert. 1978. On the relative order of adjectives. In Language Universals, ed. Hansjakob Seiler, 165–184. Töbingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  13. Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Affixation by place of articulation: Rare and mysterious. Paper at the conference on Rara, Leipzig, 29 March – 1 April.Google Scholar
  14. Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25: 83–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jun, Jongho. 2004. Place assimilation. In Phonetically Based Phonology, eds. Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, Cambridge: 58–86. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kabak, Bariş. 2007. Hiatus resolution in Turkish: An underspecification account. Lingua, Steriade, Cambridge: 58–86.Google Scholar
  17. Lahiri, Aditi and Vincent Evers. 1991. Palatalization and coronality. In The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence, eds. Carol Paradis and Jean-François Prunet, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lahiri, Aditi and Henning Reetz. 2002. Underspecified recognition. In Laboratory Phonology 7, eds. Carlos Gussenhoven and Natasha Warner, 637–674. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Lahiri, Aditi and Henning Reetz. 2007. Distinctive features: Signal to representation. In Phonetic Bases for Distinctive Features, ed. George N. Clements (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  20. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language 58: 574–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mohanan, K. P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. In The Last Phonological Rule, ed. John Goldsmith, 61–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1977. On rules of infixing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  24. Moravcsik, Edith A. 2000. Infixation. In Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, vol. 1, 545–552. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2008. Universals in syntax. The Linguistic Review 25:35–82.Google Scholar
  26. Obleser, Jonas, Aditi Lahiri, and Carsten Eulitz. 2004. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 31–39.Google Scholar
  27. Plank, Frans. 1989. On Humboldt on the dual. In Linguistic Categorization, eds. Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman, and Michael Noonan, 293–333. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Plank, Frans. 2003. There’s more than one way to make sense of one-way implications – and sense they need to be made of. Linguistic Typology 7: 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plank, Frans. 2007. Extent and limits of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – but through constraints on WHAT is diversity limited? Linguistic Typology 11: 43–68.Google Scholar
  30. Plank, Frans, and Wolfgang Schellinger. 1997. The uneven distribution of genders over numbers: Greenberg Nos. 37 and 45. Linguistic Typology 1: 53–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih. 1990. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of Sige-Yuki Kuroda, eds. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Ultan, Russell. 1975. Infixes and their origins. In Linguistic Workshop III, ed. Hansjakob Seiler, 157–205. Mönchen: Fink.Google Scholar
  33. Yu, Alan C. L. 2004. Reduplication in English Homeric infixation. NELS 34: 619–633.Google Scholar
  34. Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aditi Lahiri
    • 1
  • Frans Plank
    • 2
  1. 1.University of OxfordOxford
  2. 2.Universität KonstanzKonstanz

Personalised recommendations