Review of Language Classifications: Observations and Explanations

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

© 2019 by SSRG - IJHSS Journal

Volume 6 Issue 4

Year of Publication : 2019

Authors : Shinichi Shoji

10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V6I4P106

How to Cite?

Shinichi Shoji, "Review of Language Classifications: Observations and Explanations," SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 6,  no. 4, pp. 46-56, 2019. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V6I4P106

Abstract:

The objective of this article is to review the history of different approaches to language classification. For classifying languages, early linguists have inductively observed the surface structures of existing languages to find common and different linguistic properties. Inductive classifications started with a historical approach (e.g., family tree), which was followed by a geographical approach (e.g., wave theory). Later, Greenberg’s (1963) findings of “language universals” based on a typological approach brought a significant impact, and Greenbergian typology became mainstream for language classification studies. In contrast to the above inductive observations, Chomsky (1980; 1981) and his Principles and Parameters Theory offered a deductive account for Greenbergian findings. According to the theory, language diversity is a reflection of the binary settings of parameters. Further, a functionalist approach filled the gap that the Chomskyan theory did not explain; functionality affects the distributions of language types, with preferences for some parameter settings over other settings. Overall, this article demonstrates that explanations for language differences have developed from inductive observations to formalist approach, and then to functionalist approaches in order for inductive observations and formalist explanations to be compatible.

Keywords:

historical approach, geographical approach, typology, principles and parameters theory, functionality

References:

[1] Baker, M. C. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind‟s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
[2] Bickel, B. (2007). Typology in the 21st Century: Major and current developments, Linguistic Typology, 11, 239-251.
[3] Campbell, L. (2004). Historical linguistics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[4] Campbell, L. (2006). Why Sir William Jones got it all wrong, or Jones‟ role in how to establish language families, in J. Lakarra, & J. I. Hualde, eds. Studies in Basque and historical linguistics in Memory of R. L. Trask. Bibao: Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, 245-264.
[5] Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[6] Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization, in R. A. Jacobs, & P. S. Rosenbaum, eds. Reading in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn, 184-221.
[7] Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
[8] Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding, Dordrecht: Foris.
[9] Chomsky, N. (1995). Introduction, in N. Chomsky ed. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1-11.
[10] Chomsky, N. (1998). Noam Chomsky‟s minimalist program and the philosophy of mind. An interview [with] Cela-Conde, C. J. & Gisela Marty, Syntax, 1, 19-36.
[11] Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[12] Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[13] Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity, Language, 55(1), 59-138.
[14] Dunn, M., Greenhill, S., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011a). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals, Nature, 473, 79-82.
[15] Dunn, M., Greenhill, S., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011b). Universal typological dependencies should be detectable in the history of language families, Linguistic Typology, 15(2), 509-534.
[16] Dryer, M. S. (1988). Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth, Lingua, 74, 85-217.
[17] Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations, Language, 68, 81-138.
[18] Dryer, M. S. (2011a). Definite articles, in M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/37
[19] Dryer, M. S. (2011b). Position of polar question particles, in M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/92
[20] Fries, C. C. (1940). On the development of the structural use of word order in Modern English, Language, 16, 199-208.
[21] Gill, D. (2011). Numeral classifiers, In M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/55
[22] Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction, in T. Givón, ed. Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5-41.
[23] Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements, in J. H. Greenberg, ed. Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 58-90.
[24] Greenberg, J. H. (1968). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. New York: Random House.
[25] Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
[26] Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[27] Holsberg, A. (2016). Linguistic typology, in I. Roberts ed. The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 355-376.
[28] Horie, K. & Pardeshi, P. (2009). Gengo no taiporogi: Ninchi ruikeiron no apuroochi [Typology of languages: Cognitive linguistic approach]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
[29] Ibrahim, M. A. (2015). The verb transivity of Muntafiq Arabic: A morpho-syntactic mapping. SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 11-17.
[30] Keenan, E. L. (1985). Passive in the world‟s languages, in T. Shopen, ed. Language typology and syntactic description, vol 1: Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 243-281.
[31] Kirby, S. (1999). Function, selection, and Innateness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[32] Lehmann, W. P. (1973). A structural principle of language and its implications, Language, 49, 47-66.
[33] Li, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language, in C. Li, ed. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 457-489.
[34] Maddieson, I. (2011). Tone, in M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/13 [35] Mathesius, V. (1961). Obsahový rozbor součané angličtiny na źakladé obecné lingvistickém [A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis] Trans. by I. Iijima (1981). Tokyo, Japan: Kirihara Shoten.
[36] Matsumoto, K (2006). Sekaigengo e no shiza: Rekishi gengogaku to gengo ruikeiron [A worldwide perspective on languages: Historical linguistics and linguistic typology]. Tokyo: Sanseido
[37] Newmeyer, F. J. (1986). Linguistic theory in America, 2nd ed. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
[38] Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). The irrelevance of typology for grammatical theory, Syntax, 1, 161-197.
[39] Newmeyer, F. J. (1999). Some remarks on the functionalist-formalist controversy in linguistics, in D, Mike, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, & K. Wheatly, eds. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume I: General papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 469-486.
[40] Newmeyer, F. J. (2001). Formal linguistics and functional explanation: Bridging the gap. Presentation handout, University of South Carolina Linguistics Colloquium (April 6, 2001).
[41] Newmeyer, F. J. (2004). Typological evidence and universal grammar, Studies in Language, 28, 527-548.
[42] Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[43] Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar, Language, 62, 56-119.
[44] Padley, A. G. (1976). Grammatical theory in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[45] Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and surface structure constrains in syntax. New York: Holt & Rinehart.
[46] Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: HarperPerennial.
[47] Schleicher, A. (1869). The Darwinian theory and the science of language, in K. Koerner, ed. Linguistics and evolutionary theory: Three essays (1983), Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-76.
[48] Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company.
[49] Stassen, L. (2011). Comparative constructions, in M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/121
[50] Trask, R. L. (2002). The mind‟s hidden rules of grammar by Mark Baker. Review of The atoms of language by Mark Baker, The Human Nature Review, 2, 77-81.
[51] Vennemann, T. (1974). Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX, in J. Anderson, & C. Jones, eds. Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the first international congress of historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 339-376.
[52] Weil, H. (1869). De l‟ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux modernes: essai de grammaire générale [The order of words in the ancient languages compared with that of the modern languages] Trans. by C. W. Super (1877). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[53] Whaley, L. J. (1997). Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.