a predictable aspect of (morpho)syntactic variants

7/30/2019 A Predictable Aspect of (Morpho)Syntactic Variants

1/233

ISBN 961-6242-42-3JANEZ ORENIK

A PREDICTABLE ASPECTOF (MORPHO)SYNTACTIC VARIANTS

PREDVIDLJIV VIDIK(OBLIKO)SKLADENJSKIH DVOJNIC


2/233


3/233

SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTIACADEMIA SCIENTIARUM ET ARTIUM SLOVENICA

RAZRED ZA FILOLOKE IN LITERARNE VEDE

CLASSIS II: PHILOLOGIA ET LITTERAE

DELA OPERA58

JANEZ ORENIK

A PREDICTABLE ASPECTOF (MORPHO)SYNTACTIC VARIANTS

PREDVIDLJIV VIDIK(OBLIKO)SKLADENJSKIH DVOJNIC

LJUBLJANA

2001


4/233

SPREJETO NA SEJIRAZREDA ZA FILOLOKE IN LITERARNE VEDE

SLOVENSKE AKADEMIJE ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTIDNE 24. OKTOBRA 2000

INNA SEJI IZVRILNEGA ODBORA PREDSEDSTVADNE 17. SEPTEMBRA 2001

Knjino izdajo je finanno omogoiloMinistrstvo za olstvo, znanost in port Republike Slovenije

CIP Kataloni zapis o publikacijiNarodna in univerzitetna knjinica

81367

ORENIK, JanezA predictable aspect of (morpho)syntactic variants = Predvidljiv vidik (obliko)skla-

denjskih dvojnic / Janez Orenik. Ljubljana : Slovenska akademija znanosti inumetnosti, 2001. (Dela / Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Razred za filolokein literarne vede = Opera / Academia scientiarum et artium slovenica, Classis II.Philologia et litterae ; 58)

ISBN 961-6242-42-3

114588160


5/233

FORVARJAAND KARIN


6/233


7/233

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................9Introduction Also the Summary of the Monograph..........................................................11Examples...............................................................................................................................21

Albanian p. 21, Arabic p. 25, Arawak p. 30, Bahasa Indonesia p. 30, Bambara p. 32,Breton p. 32, Carib p. 33, Catalan p. 35, Chinese p. 35, Croatian p. 38, Danish p. 40,

English (Old) p. 42, Estonian p. 43, Finnish p. 43, French p. 46, German p. 60,Germanic languages (old) p. 73, Gothic p. 73, Greek (Ancient) p. 75, Guaran p. 79,Hausa p. 80, Hidatsa p. 81, Hungarian p. 82, Icelandic p. 84, Italian p. 86, Japanese p.90, Kekchi p. 91, Kharia p. 92, KinyaRwanda & Nez Perce p. 93, Lakhota p. 93,Lappish p. 98, Latin p. 98, Macedonian p. 102, Miriam p. 103, Norwegian p. 104,Paiute p. 105, Persian p. 105, Quechua p. 106, Quich p. 107, Quileute p. 109,Romance languages p. 109, Romanian p. 110, Russian p. 115, Sanskrit p. 117,Slovenian p. 120, Spanish p. 178, Swedish p. 183, Tadzhik p. 191, Tagalog p. 192,Thai p. 193, Tiwi p. 194, Turkish p. 195, Walbiri p. 198, Welsh p. 199, Wikchamni p.200, Miscellanea p. 200

The preterite and present perfect tenses in German...........................................................213Slovenski povzetek Slovenian Summary.........................................................................223

References...........................................................................................................................231Index....................................................................................................................................237

7


8/233


9/233

Acknowledgements

Many persons have helped me in various ways in the course of my writing this book,and I wish to thank in particular the following persons: an anonymous Slovenian ladyfrom Brazil, John Ole Askedal, Wayles Browne, Igor Grdina, Franc Jakopin, DomenKavi, Milena Milojevi-Sheppard, Tom Muhlstein, Albina Neak-Lk, VladimirPoganik, Chikako Shigemori-Buar, Mitja Skubic, John Charles Smith, and Marina

Zorman.Over the last few years I have been trying parts of the book on students in courses. Thestudents provided improvements to the text, and I owe them particular thanks.

I owe gratitude to Margaret G. Davis for the correction of my English. Ms. Davis hasalso suggested several improvements of the contents.

I owe special and personal gratitude to my wife Varja Cvetko-Orenik and to KarinCvetko-Rasmussen for putting up with me and encouraging me. I dedicate the book tothem.

I am deeply indebted to Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti (The SlovenianAcademy of Sciences and Arts) for publishing this monograph in one of its series.

Two points concerning technical matters. Female authors are referred to with theinitial of their first name followed by their surname, whereas male authors are mentionedby surname only. E.g. the fictitious "Richards & J. Smith" refers to a putative jointpublication of Henry Richards and Janet Smith.

Occasionally I mention an author without adding the year of publication to his/hername. This tells the reader that I have not exploited or even not consulted that text. Nor isit listed in the References or in the Index.

The author's addresses:

Office: Filozofska fakulteta, SI-1001 Ljubljana, SloveniaE-mail:[email protected]

9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/233


11/233

Introduction Also the Summary of the Monograph

Key words: naturalness, morphology, morphosyntax, syntax, and the languages listed inthe Table of Contents.

The subject-matter of the present monograph is a (language-universal) theory deve-

loped in Slovenia by a small group of linguists (under my guidance), who mainly useEnglish, German, and Slovenian language material as the base of verification. Our workowes much to, and exploits, the (linguistic) Naturalness Theory as elaborated especially atsome Austrian and German universities; cf. Mayerthaler 1981, Wurzel 1984, Dressler etal. 1987, Stolz 1992, Dressler 2000. Naturalness Theory has also been applied to syntax,notably at the University of Klagenfurt; the basic references are Dotter 1990, Mayerthaler& Fliedl 1993, Mayerthaler et al. 1993, 1995, 1998. Within the natural syntax of theKlagenfurt brand, the Slovenian work group has built an extension, which will henceforthbe referred to as "the Slovenian Theory."

The Slovenian Theory studies the behaviour of (mostly syntactic and morphosyntactic,less often morphological) expressions here called variants. Whenever two variants areincluded in the same naturalness scale, and consequently one variant can be asserted to bemore natural than the other, the Slovenian Theory has something to say about thegrammatical properties of the two variants.

Naturalness Theory operates with two basic predicates, "marked" and "natural." I can -not see any reason to distinguish the two predicates within the Slovenian Theory, thereforeI use throughout one predicate only, namely "natural." (This standpoint was implied asearly as Mayerthaler 1987, 50.)

Beside the technical terms "natural(ness)" and "naturalness scale," which have alreadybeen alluded to, the terms "sym-value" and "sem-value" (adopted from Mayerthaler 1981,10 and passim) must be mentioned. The sym-value refers to the naturalness of an ex-pression in terms of its coding properties. The sem-value refers to the naturalness of anexpression in terms of its semantic complexity.

Any naturalness scale assumes the format >sem (a, b) or the format >sym (c, d). Theformat >sem (a, b) reads: With respect to semantic complexity, a is more natural than b.For ease of computation, a is assigned a high sem-value (symbol: >sem "more natural withrespect to semantic complexity"), and b is assigned a low sem-value (symbol: sym (c, d) reads: With respectto coding properties, c is more natural than d. For ease of computation, c is assigned ahigh sym-value (symbol: >sym "more natural with respect to coding properties"), and d is

11


12/233

A PREDICTABLE ASPECT OF (MORPHO)SYNTACTIC VARIANTS

assigned a low sym-value (symbol: sym-value tends to associate with at least one additional >sym-value

and/or with at least one sem-valueand/or with at least one sym, or sym (the typefour times, the type once) / in EnglishI.e. with respect to coding properties, the typefour times is more natural than the typeonce, in English.

12


13/233

INTRODUCTION ALSO THE SUMMARY OF THE MONOGRAPH

x.1.2. >sem (low number, non-low number)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, any low number is more natural than any

non-low number. (Mayerthaler 1981, 15.)x.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:x.2.1. >sym tends to associate with


14/233


(instead of the generative theory) finishes the generation of some structures, notably ofthose here called variants. (This is a Lilliputian step for linguistics, and a large one forme.)

In the bulk of this book, the Slovenian Theory is illustrated with selected examples,each of which is dealt with in a deduction whose format is as follows:

y. Language name(s). Brief description of the language data to be considered.The two variants: V1 (containing the properties a and b) and V 2 (containing the

properties c and d).y.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:y.1.1. states a naturalness scale applicable to the language data considered. The natu -

ralness scale mentions the properties a and c, and allots them a high and a low sem/sym-value, respectively.

y.1.2. states another naturalness scale applicable to the language data considered. Thenaturalness scale mentions the properties b and d, and allots them a high and a low sem/sym-value, respectively.

y.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two variants:y.2.1. states an assumption applicable to y.1.1-2.y.2.2. states another assumption applicable to y.1.1-2.(The complete list of the assumptions of the Slovenian Theory was adduced above.)y.3. The consequences:From y.1.1, y.1.2 and y.2.1 it can be deduced:y.3.1. If there is any difference between properties a and b, such that one of them

combines with property c, and the other of them combines with property d, it is property athat tends to combine with property c. Q.E.D.

From y.1.1, y.1.2 and y.2.2 it can be deduced:y.3.2. If there is any difference between properties a and b, such that one of them

combines with property c, and the other of them combines with property d, it is property bthat tends to combine with property d. Q.E.D.

y.4. Note(s). (Optional.)

The remainder of this chapter provides a commentary on the sundry items in the

format of the deductions.In the examples, I have endeavoured to use language data which are as simple, clear,and varied as possible, in addition to being, hopefully, undisputed. I have often chosencases already mentioned and/or discussed in the technical literature.

What I have circumvented, although it would have been necessary, is to exploit thelanguage data of some linguistic monograph or grammar systematically, so as to registerany counterexamples to the Slovenian Theory. I believe that such a move would be pre-mature, in the light of the circumstance that so many naturalness scales of potential helpare not yet available. Regrettably, there is no telling at the present time whether a putativecounterexample is a true one.

In the present monograph, 250-60 examples taken from more than 50 languages anddialects are considered. The reader will be astonished to notice the almost completeabsence of English cases. While there are many in my records, they could not be includedin the present monograph, for reasons unrelated to linguistics. I hope to publish themlater.

I have tried to keep the number of my data sources relatively low in order to avoid the

14


15/233


dangerous mingling of too many terminology systems. On the same account I seldomquote from my sources' references to even more basic works. In spite of these consciousefforts, my meta-theoretical apparatus is not fully consistent.

In the present monograph, one of the crucial notions is that of (morphological,morphosyntactic, syntactic) variants. They almost always appear in pairs. In the early

stages of our research it was assumed that the members of each pair contract the relationof (near-)synonymity. However, in the type of linguistics that I am familiar with, there isno exact measure of (near-)synonymity for any two variants (with some exceptions).Moreover, recent investigations have shown that the Slovenian Theory remains valid evenif the notion of variant is broadened to subsume any (morphological, morphosyntactic,syntactic) units that belong to the same (morphological, morphosyntactic, syntactic)superordinate unit or category. Thus not only are the two English indefinite articles, a(n)andsm (e.g. a book, sm milk), variants, but also the English definite and indefinite articlescan constitute a pair of variants (because they are subsumed under "article").

As this notion of variant is somewhat indeterminate, I expressly enumerate, in eachdeduction, the two (seldom more than two) variants considered.

(Morphosyntactic and syntactic variants are simplistically classed together as"syntactic variants" in the remainder of the book.)

The present monograph is not an introduction to Naturalness Theory. Concerning itsprinciples and other teachings, the reader is referred to the basic works listed at thebeginning of this chapter. (An understanding of written German, besides English, isessential.)

Naturalness Theory cannot be furthered in my scholarly environment, for lack ofpertinent resources (though this may change, given the rich data which will slowly becomeavailable on the internet, see Plank & E. Filimonova 2000). But I have ventured to suggesta new naturalness scale here and there. My guesses, even if found plausible, deserve thereader's scepticism, in spite of any argumentation that I adduce in support of suchattempts.

I am, however, offering two kinds of scales which seem to me to be rooted in the logicof language relations, rather than in the language dataalthough I do believe that thesuggested scales are compatible with the data:

(a) >sem (x, y), where y does not constitute a "natural class." In such a case, y is less

sem-natural than x. Cf. deductions 46, 210 and 213.(b) >sem (A + B, A), i.e. any phenomenon is more sem-natural than just a part of thatphenomenon. Cf. deductions 33, 62 and 93.

The fact that a given scale is either of the form >sem (x, y) (where y is not a "naturalclass") or of the form >sem (A + B, A) will be marshalled in this volume as support for theplausibility of that scale.

I am not exactly proud of these two scale types, for they increase the power ofNaturalness Theory considerably, and so are a step in the wrong direction. However, quitea few language phenomena would remain outside the scope of the theory if these scaletypes were not postulated. Rather, they are a necessary evil.

Any scale of the format >sem (A + B, A) in combination with another scale reflectsthe well-known observation that what is more sem-natural (less marked) is more varied.The scale format >sem (A + B, A) has a systematic weakness, which becomes apparent ifthe scale format is rewritten as >sem (A + B, X), where X can be either A or B; hence thechoice between A and B (in X) is arbitrary. Thus no predictions can be based on the X-part of the scale format. Therefore, the scales of the scale format >sem (A + B, A) can

15


16/233


only be used in the consequence section of each deduction in such a way that they are fullypresupposed, i.e. they must precede the first mention of the words "such as." In somecases, this results in awkward formulations of the consequence sections.

Regrettably, a scale of the type >sem (A + B, A) can also contain nonsense, e.g. >sem(perfective and imperfective aspects, perfective aspect) / noun phrase. On the whole it is

not likely that noun phrases would show aspectual distinctions; under such a presup-position, the example should not pass as well-formed. However, this is hardly a specificproblem of my monograph: the difficulty has not been disposed of in any language theory,to the best of my knowledge.

I do hope that the format >sem (A + B, A) can soon be replaced by the significantlyless powerful and more manageable format >sem (+A and -A, +A or -A). Indeed most ofmy examples conform to the latter formatbut not all.

A theoretically possible instance of >sem (A + B, A) is this: >sem (singular & plural& dual, singular & plural) / noun phrase, i.e. a noun phrase that distinguishes singular,plural and dual is more sem-natural than a noun phrase that distinguishes just singularand plural. The scale is not meant to imply that noun phrases which distinguish singular,plural and dual are more common cross-linguistically than noun phrases whichdistinguish just singular and plural. What the scale does imply is that, in a languagewhose noun phrases partly distinguish singular, plural and dual, and partly just singularand plural, the noun phrases of the former kind are more sem-natural than the nounphrases of the latter kind. For instance, the noun phrases of the former kind wouldcomprise personal pronouns, and the noun phrases of the latter kind would comprise allthe remaining noun phrases of the language.Notice that a language phenomenon whichis common cross-linguistically can be assigned a high sem-value. But the fact that aphenomenon has a high sem-value does not automatically warrant the reverse conclusionthat that phenomenon is common cross-linguistically.

As is well known, numerous naturalness scales are due to Mayerthaler, therefore hiswork is quoted time and again in the present monograph. Even when I could have referredthe reader to another author, I normally opted for Mayerthaler's version ceteris paribus,for consistency.

My records contain about 460 deductions at the time of this writing. In my collection,a number of naturalness scales are employed with some persistence. For instance, the

transparency scale is used 229 times and the frequency scale 74 times. If anything, thisindicates that the tendency towards an upper limit on the quantity of the scales is arealistic expectation. Furthermore, taking into consideration the fact that the transparencyscale is the most often utilized, and with success, it can be surmised that the languagefaculty strongly favours parameters that are simple indeed. (The remaining scales eachappear about 20 times at best, and their contents are much less general than in the morecommon scales just mentioned.)

Certain naturalness scales present real or apparent difficulties:(a) A notorious case of conflicting naturalness "laws" are the existing scales of gram -

matical person. At least two traditions can be distinguished. One begins with Jakobson1932, if not earlier, and was elaborated especially in Greenberg's work: >sem (third, first,second) / grammatical person. The other tradition is usually ascribed to Bhler (for in-stance, Bhler 1934): >sem (first, second, third) / grammatical person. (The formulationof the two scales just adduced has been "modernized" here.) From work with languagematerial it emerges that Jakobson's scale can be of avail in most cases. The Germanpresent perfect and preterite tenses (see the chapter treating them) crucially involve the

16


17/233


grammatical person, and they convincingly support the Jakobson-Greenberg tradition.In a conspicuously smaller number of cases, Bhler's version assures a "result." How-

ever, insofar as Bhler's scale finds application in my examples, it can be reduced to >sem(first, non-first) / grammatical person. The "non-first grammatical person" of this versioncan be interpreted as a case of non-"natural class:" the Jakobson-Greenberg tradition sug-

gests that the first and the second persons constitute a "natural class;" if so, the third andthe second persons of Bhler's scale cannot constitute a "natural class." Hence Bhler'sscale boils down to an instance of the new kind of scales that I have suggested above, andis no true alternative to the Jakobson-Greenberg tradition.The coordination of twogrammatical persons of the type 'you and X' (yielding the second-person anaphora) can behandled according to Jakobson-Greenberg, see deduction 252.

I hold a comparable view of the scale >sem (second, non-second) / grammaticalperson, suitable for the subsystem of appeal, notably in connection with the imperative andwith the pronouns of address (e.g. German du vs. Sie). The non-second person does notconstitute a "natural class," and is therefore less sem-natural than the second person. Thisscale can be applied to a small number of cases only, like the Bhler scale, and unlike theJakobson-Greenberg scale.

It does not seem necessary to postulate some fourth variant of the grammatical-personscale, although I invite the reader to consult Croft 1990 passim, e.g. 111-3, withreferences.

(b) Ferguson 1996, 243 has drawn attention to the paradigms of the Old English andOld Swedish present indicatives. Old English distinguishes the grammatical persons in thesingular only, Old Swedish in the plural only. Both situations can be accounted for by theSlovenian Theory, see deductions 20 and 222. The two examples show that some natural-ness scales contradict each other, which is understandable in the light of the familiarassumption that our brain works with partially conflicting parameters.

Occasionally it is possible to treat the same language data in two different deductions,and yet achieve the same predictions (based, however, on unequal assumptions!). This is arealistic situation: not all speakers of a language have internalized the same grammar.

It is possible that the alignment rules of the Slovenian Theory can be simplified, assuggested by the following consideration. It follows from the pair of scales >sem (a, b) and

>sym (c, d) that a tends to associate with d, and b tends to associate with c. The sameresult is obtained in the pair of scales >sem (a, b) and >sem (d, c): a tends to associatewith d, and b tends to associate with c. This leads to the equation: >sem (a, b) = >sym (b,a). The equation makes it possible to transform any >sem-scale into a corresponding>sym-scale, and v.v. Thus it suffices to postulate only sem- or only sym-values.Consequently the distinction between sem- and sym-values is not necessary, and we can"return" to (bare) markedness. Markedness (m) is restored with the aid of the followingequations: >sem (a, b) = sym (a, b) = m tends to associate with at least oneanother >m;


18/233


Most deductions yield two consequences each. However, in a minority of deductionsonly one consequence can be stated. The latter kind are here called asymmetrical. Thereason for the existence of asymmetrical deductions is to be sought in the circumstancethat naturalness scales of a certain type, or of certain types, have so far not beenformulated, to the best of my knowledge. However, the division of the deductions intosymmetrical and asymmetrical ones is of no theoretical importance.

Contrariwise, crucial importance is attached to the contents of the consequences(regardless of their number) stated in the deductions. Each consequence assumes the shapeof a conditional. Its protasis enumerates the conditions under which the apodosis is valid.The apodosis predicts the presence or absence of some language property in one of thevariants considered. Predicting X amounts to asserting that X cannot be otherwise. Hencein the apodosis, the behaviour of that language property is accounted for; the behaviour ofthat language property is explained (synchronically speaking, of course). The success ofeach prediction depends on the reliability of the assumptions on which that predictionrests.Historical explanations are not the subject-matter of the present volume.

This approach guarantees that the synchronic explanations of data are couched withina theoryin contradistinction to the practice in many grammars, which allow pre-theoretical explanations. The dilemma will be especially acute in the coming years, withthe publication of grammars based on corpus analysis (an outstanding specimen already on

the market is Biber et al. 1999) and tempted to pour life into their statistical data by tryingto explain them. To be sure, any explanations must take many aspects of the data into ac -count. Suffice it to mention that the sundry registers require widely divergent register-internal explanations, as well as inter-register explanations. Non-linguistic factors have tobe considered. Therefore a unitary theory of synchronic explanations is out of the question,at least at the present state of the art. However, some segments of the data, notably theregister-independent, are susceptible to synchronic explanations incorporated within atheory such as ours.

Although the reader may find my monograph convincing in limited ways only, it doessuggest that naturalness scales are worthy of producing and exploiting.

The following deduction z applying an example taken from real lifeand meant asentertainmentillustrates my conviction (which I do not propose to elaborate on) that thecombination of naturalness scales with the tenets of the Slovenian Theory can even predictaspects of non-linguistic behaviour:

z. Dog's reaction. When our dog Zen meets any person carrying a conspicuously largeburden, he barks at that person.

The two variants: person carrying (not carrying) a conspicuously large burden.z.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:z.1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a unit of greater transparency is more natural

than a corresponding unit of lesser transparency. (Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler etal. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency see Mayerthaler 1987, 49.)

Two special cases of z.1.1:z.1.1.1. >sym (person carrying a large burden, person not carrying a large burden)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a person carrying a large burden is more natural

than a person not carrying a large burden.z.1.1.2. >sym (dog barking, dog not barking)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a barking dog is more natural than a dog not

barking.z.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two variants:

18


19/233


z.2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >symz.2.2.


20/233


21/233

Examples

1. Albanian. Pronominal possessor, first and second person, alienable and inalienablepossession. In inalienable possession, the possessor precedes the possessum, and there isno definite article, e.g. im at'my father.' In alienable possession, the possessor follows thepossessum, and the latter attaches the definite article, e.g. tren-i im 'my train.' (Lyons1999, 129.) The present deduction is continued in deductions 2 and 3.

The two syntactic variants: the type im at, and the type tren-i im.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency

is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency.(Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency seeMayerthaler 1987, 49.)

A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (the type tren-i im, the type im at) / in AlbanianI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type tren-i im is more natural than the type

im at, in Albanian.1.2. >sym (+postposed, -postposed) / adjective in AlbanianI.e. with respect to coding properties, a postposed adjective is more natural than a

preposed adjective, in Albanian.In this respect, Albanian resembles the Romance langu -

ages.1.3. >sem (-alienable, +alienable) / possessionI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, inalienable possession is more natural than

alienable possession. (Mayerthaler 1981, 152; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 275.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym2.2.


22/233


3.2. If there is any difference between the type im atand the type tren-i im, such thatone expresses alienable possession, and the other expresses inalienable possession, andsuch that in one the possessor precedes the possessum, and in the other the possessorfollows the possessum, it is the type im at that tends to express inalienable possession,and its possessor tends to precede the possessum. Q.E.D.

2. Albanian. Pronominal possessor, third person, alienable and inalienable possession.In inalienable possession, a particle precedes the possessum, to which the definite articleattaches, e.g. e m-a 'his/her/their mother;' the possessor is not expressed. In alienablepossession, the possessor is followed by a particle and by the clitic dative of the possessor,e.g. shoq-ja e tij 'his female colleague.' (Lyons 1999, 129; supplemented with Snoj 1991,53 ff.) The present deduction continues deduction 1, and is continued in deduction 3.

The two syntactic variants: the type e m-a, and the typeshoq-ja e tij .1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (the typeshoq-ja e tij , the type e m-a) / in AlbanianI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type shoq-ja e tij is more natural than the

type e m-a, in Albanian.1.2. >sem (-alienable, +alienable) / possessionI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, inalienable possession is more natural than

alienable possession. (Mayerthaler 1981, 152; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 275.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


23/233

EXAMPLES

1.1. >sem ('his/her/their;' 'his,' 'her,' 'their') / pronominal possessor in AlbanianI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the expression of 'his,' 'her' and 'their' with

one form is more natural than the expression of these three separately, in Albanian.Aform with several meanings has a higher sem-value than a corresponding form with fewermeanings.

1.2. >sem (-alienable, +alienable) / possessionI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, inalienable possession is more natural thanalienable possession. (Mayerthaler 1981, 152; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 275.)

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


24/233


I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +definite is more natural than -definite.Everything definite is presupposed.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


25/233

EXAMPLES

other not, it is the person name lacking the definite article that tends to show the vocativeuse. Q.E.D.

6. Arabic. The first persons of the verb do not distinguish gender, whereas theremaining persons do distinguish gender. (Grande 1972, 391.)

The two syntactic variants: the first persons, and the remaining persons of the verb.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (genders conflated, genders separated) / the verbal persons of ArabicI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the conflation of genders in a verbal person is

more natural than the separation of genders in a verbal person, in Arabic.A form withseveral meanings has a higher sem-value than a corresponding form with fewer meanings.

1.2. >sem (+first, -first) / grammatical person in the verb of ArabicI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the first person is more natural than the non-

first persons, in the verb of Arabic.The non-first persons do not constitute a "naturalclass," therefore their sem-naturalness is low.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (accusative, genitive) / in nom.-acc. languagesI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the accusative is more natural than the

genitive, in nominative-accusative languages. (Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 167.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (accusative, genitive) / affix as argument in nom.-acc. languages

25


26/233


I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the accusative affix is more natural than thegenitive affix, as argument in nominative-accusative languages.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (+presupposed, -presupposed)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +presupposed is more natural than

-presupposed. (Mayerthaler 1981, 14.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (+definite, -definite)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +definite is more natural than -definite.

Everything definite is presupposed.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sym (suffixal formation, "broken" formation) / of grammatical number in ArabicI.e. with respect to coding properties, suffixal formation is more natural than "broken"

26


27/233

EXAMPLES

formation of grammatical number, in Arabic. (Cf. Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 273.)1.2. >sem (plural, dual)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the plural is more natural than the dual.

(Greenberg 1966, 31-7.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two morphological

variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sem (-redundant, +redundant) / cardinal numeral in expressions of exact

quantityI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, non-redundant cardinal numeral is more

natural than redundant cardinal numeral, in expressions of exact quantity.This is basedon the circumstance that cardinal numerals are the prototypical expressions of exactquantity.

A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sem (present, absent) / cardinal numeral in expressions of exact quantity, in

Iraqi Arabic

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a present cardinal numeral is more naturalthan a lacking cardinal numeral, in expressions of exact quantity, in Iraqi Arabic.1.2. >sem (plural, dual)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the plural is more natural than the dual.

(Greenberg 1966, 31-7.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


28/233


disallow the presence of the cardinal numeral. Q.E.D.

11. Arabic, Iraqi. Adjectives agree with their head nouns, in respect of number.However, the construction adjective + human head noun is treated differently from theconstruction adjective + non-human head noun. Human duals are treated as plurals for the

purposes of concord: walad jaml 'a handsome boy,' waladayn jamln 'two handsomeboys,' awld jamln '(more than two) handsome boys.' Plural and dual non-human nounsare treated like feminine singular nouns for the purposes of concord: al-bayt al-jaml 'thebeautiful house,' al-baytayn al-jamla 'the two beautiful houses,' al-byt al-jamla 'the(more than two) beautiful houses.' (Cruse 1999, 268.) These phenomena are dealt with inthe present deduction and in deduction 12.

The two syntactic variants: part-of-speech units which have, outside the singular,plural and dual forms, and part-of-speech units which have, outside the singular, pluralforms only.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (noun, adjective)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a noun is more natural than an adjective.

The adjective is not a universal category (Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 24).1.2. >sem (plural and dual forms, plural forms only) / outside the singular of nouns

and adjectives, in Iraqi ArabicI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, nouns and adjectives that have, outside the

singular, plural and dual forms are more natural than nouns and adjectives that have,outside the singular, plural forms only, in Iraqi Arabic.The scale has the format >sem (A+ B, A).



29/233

EXAMPLES

are treated like feminine singular nouns for the purposes of concord: al-bayt al-jaml 'thebeautiful house,' al-baytayn al-jamla 'the two beautiful houses,' al-byt al-jamla 'the(more than two) beautiful houses.' (Cruse 1999, 268.) These phenomena are dealt with inthe present deduction and in deduction 11.

The two syntactic variants: part-of-speech units which have singular, plural and dual

forms, and part-of-speech units which have singular forms only.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (noun, adjective)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a noun is more natural than an adjective.

The adjective is not a universal category (Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 24).1.2. >sem (singular, plural and dual forms, singular forms only) / outside the singular

of non-human nouns and adjectives, in Iraqi ArabicI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, nouns and adjectives that have singular,

plural and dual forms are more natural than nouns and adjectives that have singular formsonly, in Iraqi Arabic.The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A).

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (obligatory, optional) / number marking in nouns of ArawakI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, obligatory forms are more natural than

optional forms, for number marking in nouns of Arawak.It is much more common cross-linguistically that number marking is obligatory than optional.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:

29


30/233


2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (SV, VS) / in SVO-languagesI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the element order subject - verb is more natu-

ral than the element order verb - subject, in SVO-languages.This follows from the basic-ness of SVO in SVO-languages (Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 349). Indonesian languages areSVO (S. Steele 1978, 590).



31/233

EXAMPLES

order verb - subject.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (VS, SV) / in interrogative clauses of Bahasa IndonesiaI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the element order verb - subject is more

natural than the element order subject - verb, in interrogative clauses of Bahasa

Indonesia.This follows from deduction 14.1.2. >sem (more frequent, less frequent) / unitI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a more frequent unit is more natural than a

less frequent unit. (In the spirit of G. Fenk-Oczlon 1991.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (auxiliaries, most other verbal lexemes)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the auxiliaries are more natural than most

other verbal lexemes.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sym (transitivity, intransitivity)I.e. with respect to coding properties, transitivity is more natural than intransitivity.1.1.2. >sym (auxiliary, suffix) / as means of expressing past tense in BambaraI.e. with respect to coding properties, an auxiliary is more natural than a suffix, as a

means of expressing the past tense in Bambara.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. sym

3. The consequences:From 1.1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced:3.1. If there is any difference between the past tense of transitive and intransitive

31


32/233


verbs, such that one kind of verbs uses an auxiliary, and the other kind of verbs uses asuffix, it is the intransitive verbs that tend to use a suffix. Q.E.D.

From 1.1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between the past tense of transitive and intransitive

verbs, such that one kind of verbs uses an auxiliary, and the other kind of verbs uses a

suffix, it is the transitive verbs that tend to use an auxiliary. Q.E.D.

16. Breton. There is subject agreement, except in affirmative clauses, where the verbassumes the default value = the third person singular. E.g. an dud ne lavarent netra met achome sioul 'the people said nothing but stayed quiet.' (The first verb in the third personplural, the other verb in the third person singular.) (J. B. Johannessen 1998, 42, referringto Borsley & Stephens and to a personal communication by Frederik Otto Lindeman.)

The two syntactic variants: the verb in affirmative clauses, and the verb in non-affirmative clauses.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (+affirmative, -affirmative) / clauseI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the affirmative clause is more natural than

the non-affirmative clause.1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sym (full inflection, default form) / verbI.e. with respect to coding properties, a verb showing full inflection is more natural

than a verb showing the default form only.Full inflection is easier for the hearer toprocess than the default form.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with


33/233

EXAMPLES

1.1. >sem ('I and he,' 'I and you')I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, 'I and he' is more natural than 'I and you.'

This is based on the admittedly slim evidence of Menomini: the pronoun for the exclusiveplural ('I and he') is derived from the pronoun [nenah] 'I;' the pronoun for the inclusiveplural is derived from the pronoun [kenah] 'thou.' In both cases, the change to the plural

consists in the replacement of the word-final [h] with the glottal stop. (Data fromBloomfield 1933, 256.) The presupposition is that the pronoun 'I' is more sem-natural thanthe pronoun 'thou.'

1.2. >sem (plural, dual)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the plural is more natural than the dual.

(Greenberg 1966, 31-7.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sym (+extended, -extended) / word in CaribI.e. with respect to coding properties, an extended word is more natural than a

corresponding non-extended word, in Carib.1.1.2. >sym (noun with affix, noun without affix)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a noun with affix attached is more natural than

the same noun without an affix.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two morphological

variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym

2.2.


34/233


3.1. If there is any difference between an extended and a non-extended form of oneand the same noun, such that one form attaches personal affixes, and the other not, it isthe extended form that tends to attach personal affixes. Q.E.D.

From 1.1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between an extended and a non-extended form of one

and the same noun, such that one form attaches personal affixes, and the other not, it isthe non-extended form that tends not to attach personal affixes. Q.E.D.19. Catalan. Personal names are used with the definite article, e.g. la Maria. Names of

men use l'before any vowel, e.g. l'Eduard, and en elsewhere, e.g. en Joan. (Hualde 1992,282.)

The two syntactic variants: personal names having two variants of the definite article,and personal names having only one variant of the definite article.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (two variants, one variant) / of the definite article, with Catalan personal

namesI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, personal names admitting two variants of the

definite article are more natural than personal names admitting only one variant of thedefinite article, in Catalan.The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A).

1.2. >sem (masculine, feminine)

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, masculine is more natural than feminine.(Mayerthaler 1981, 15.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (+presupposed, -presupposed)

34


35/233

EXAMPLES

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +presupposed is more natural than presup-posed. (Mayerthaler 1981, 14.)

A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (+definite, -definite)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +definite is more natural than -definite.

Everything definite is presupposed.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sem (two number forms, one number form only)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, two number forms are more natural than one

number form only.The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A).1.2. >sem (personal pronoun, noun)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a personal pronoun is more natural than a

noun. (In the spirit of Croft 1990, 112-3 [with references] on the animacy hierarchy.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:

2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


36/233


1.1. >sem (incomplete repetition of question, other means) / used in answering a yes-no question

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, an incomplete repetition of the material ofthe question is more natural than other means, in answers to yes-no questions.This isbased on the circumstance that answering a yes-no question by repeating some of the

material of the question incompletely is more widespread than any other means ofanswering a yes-no question. Even languages that use 'yes' and 'no' as answers employ thesaid repetition as an alternative or enlarging means of answering, e.g. Are you hungry?(Yes,) I am.

1.2. >sem (affirmation, negation)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, affirmation is more natural than negation.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 15, 159.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sym (+expandable, -expandable) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, an expandable syntactic unit is more natural

than a non-expandable syntactic unit.The ability to expand syntactically involves thetendency to enhance transparency.

36


37/233

EXAMPLES

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (accented auxiliary + infinitive, clitic auxiliary + infinitive) / the future

tense in CroatianI.e. with respect to coding properties, the accented auxiliary + infinitive is more

natural than the corresponding clitic auxiliary + infinitive.All other things equal, an

accented word is easier for the addressee to decode than the corresponding clitic.1.2. >sem (affirmation, negation/interrogation)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, affirmation is more natural than negation or

interrogation.This is based on the assumption that negation and interrogation do notconstitute a "natural class." Negation and interrogation are not even correspondingcategories.



38/233


3.2. If there is any difference in the form of the affirmed and of the non-affirmedfuture tense, such that the auxiliary is accented in one kind of future tense, and notaccented in the other kind of future tense, it is the affirmed form that tends to contain aclitic auxiliary. Q.E.D.

25. Croatian. There is a tendency to express future time with the (periphrastic) futuretense in main clauses, and with the (non-periphrastic) present tense in associateddependent clauses, e.g. kad doe, vidjee 'when you come, you will see.' (Vaillant 1966,93, 109.)

The two syntactic variants: the periphrastic future tense and the non-periphrasticpresent tense as expressions of future time.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (future tense, present tense) / as expression of future time in languages that

have a future tenseI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the future tense is more natural than the

present tense, as an expression of future time in languages that have a future tense.1.2. >sem (main, dependent) / clauseI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a main clause is more natural than a

dependent clause.I consider cleft sentences such as it was Ted who broke the news to meas prototypical combinations of a main and a dependent clauses. It can be seen from theexample that it is the main clause that shows high sem-properties. Phylogenetically, mainclauses are earlier than dependent clauses.

1.3. >sem (auxiliary, other verb) / as finite verbI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, an auxiliary is more natural than other verbs,

as finite verb.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


39/233

EXAMPLES

noun the article is appended to the head noun, e.g. hele dag-en 'the whole day,' selvepave-n 'the Pope himself,' alle drenge-ne 'all the boys,' begge piger-ne 'both girls.'(Diderichsen 1957, 103.)

The two syntactic variants: adjective + head noun, and (hele/selve/al(le)/begge) +head noun.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


Two special cases of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (word, morpheme)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a word is more natural than a morpheme.1.1.2. >sym (adjective + head noun, [hele/selve/al(le)/begge ] + head noun) / in DanishI.e. with respect to coding properties, adjective + head noun is more natural than a

noun phrase consisting of just the head noun, perhaps preceded by hele/selve/al(le)/begge ,in Danish.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym2.2. sem (+definite, -definite)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +definite is more natural than -definite.

Everything definite is presupposed.1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency

39


40/233



A special case of 1.1:1.2.1. >sym (word, morpheme)

I.e. with respect to coding properties, a word is more natural than a morpheme.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with sem (future tense, praesens pro futuro) / as expression of future timeI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the future tense is more natural than praesens

pro futuro, as expression of future time.A unit (here: future tense) specialized for acategory (here: future time) is more sem-natural than a corresponding unit (here: praesenspro futuro) not specialized for that category (here: future time). Similarly, the reflexivepronoun is more sem-natural than the corresponding non-reflexive pronoun as expressionof reflexivity.

1.2. >sem (perfective & imperfective, perfective only) / verbal aspectI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, indifference as to the choice of the verbal

aspect is more natural than using the perfective aspect only.The scale has the format>sem (A + B, A).2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


41/233

EXAMPLES

Q.E.D.

29. English, Old. In the conjugation of the present indicative of most verbs, thegrammatical persons were distinguished in the singular only. (Ferguson 1996, 243). E.g.sg. bere, bir(e)st, bir(e), pl. bera 'bear' (Wright & E. Wright 1925, 253). My attention

was drawn to this matter by John C. Smithviva voce,

2000.The two morphological variants: the singular present indicative, and the pluralpresent indicative.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (three desinences, one desinence) / per number in the present indicative of

most Old English verbsI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, three desinences per number is more natural

than one desinence per number, in the present indicative of most Old English verbs.Thescale has the format >sem (A + B, A).

1.2. >sem (singular, plural)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the singular is more natural than the plural.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 15.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sem (-alienable, +alienable) / propertyI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, an inalienable property is more natural than

an alienable property. (Mayerthaler 1981, 152; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 275.)

41


42/233


A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (+permanent, -permanent) / propertyI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a permanent property is more natural than a

non-permanent property.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:

2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sym (the type hn-en hattu-nsa, the type hattu-nsa) / in FinnishI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type hn-en hattu-nsa is more natural than

the type hattu-nsa, in Finnish.1.2. >sem (-emphasis, +emphasis)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, -emphasis is more natural than +emphasis.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 15, 159.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


43/233

EXAMPLES

3.2. If there is any difference between the type hattu-nsa and the type hn-en hattu-nsa, such that one is emphatic, and the other not, it is the type hattu-nsa that tends not tobe emphatic. Q.E.D.

32. Finnish. (a) Possessive suffixes may be accompanied by a genitive personal pro-

noun for emphasis, e.g. non-emphatichattu-nsa

'his hat,' emphatichn-en hattu-nsa

samemeaning. (b) The plural pronouns in the genitive can occur without the corresponding per-sonal suffix if the possessive structure expresses some relationship other than ownership,e.g. meidn kyl 'our village.' (Lyons 1999, 127 fn.) The present deduction deals with case(b). The limitation of case (b) to the plural is treated in deduction 33. Case (a) isconsidered in deduction 31.

The two syntactic variants: the type meidn kyl 'our village' (expressing possessionother than ownership), and the type kyl-mme 'our village' (expressing ownership).



A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (the type meidn kyl, the type kyl-mme) / in FinnishI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type meidn kyl is more natural than the

type kyl-mme, in Finnish.1.2. >sem (+ownership, -ownership) / possessionI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, ownership is more natural than other kinds

of possession.Ownership is the prototypical possession.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


44/233


1.1. >sem (singular, plural)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the singular is more natural than the plural.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 15.)A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sem (the type hattu-nsa, the type meidn kyl) / in Finnish

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the type hattu-nsa is more natural than thetype meidn kyl, in Finnish.The type hattu-nsa represents the singular only and expres-ses +/-ownership, within possession. The type meidn kyl represents the plural only andexpresses -ownership, within possession.

1.2. >sem (+/-ownership, -ownership) / possessionI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, possession which does not specifically mark

ownership is more natural than possession which does not express ownership.The scalehas the format >sem (A + B, A).

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.1. sym (the type avenue de Versailles, the type rue Pasteur) / in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type avenue de Versailles is more natural

than the type rue Pasteur, in French.1.2. >sem (more frequent, less frequent) / unitI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a more frequent unit is more natural than a

44


45/233

EXAMPLES

less frequent unit. (In the spirit of G. Fenk-Oczlon 1991.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (name of person, name of place) / names of streets, squaresI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the name of a person is more natural than the

name of a place, as a constituent of a street name or a square name.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency

is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency.(Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency see

Mayerthaler 1987, 49.)A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (de + noun phrase, bare noun phrase) / possessive genitive in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, de + noun phrase is more natural than the bare

noun phrase, in French (until the 16th century).1.2. >sem (+human, -human)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +human is more natural than -human.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 14.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


46/233


From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between de + noun phrase and the bare noun phrase, as

an expression of the possessive genitive, such that one expression mostly denotes persons,and the other not, it is the bare noun phrase that tends to denote persons. Q.E.D.

36. French. In the standard language, outside formulaic expressions and POUVOIRetc., the normal sentence negation is ne pas, e.g. il ne vient pas 'he is not coming.' Ifthe sentence negation associates with an infinitive, it is ne pas, e.g. ne pas se pencher audehors 'do not lean out' = 'it is dangerous to lean out of the window.' (Grevisse 1993,1458.)

The two syntactic variants: the sentence negation ne pas, and the sentence negationne pas.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (ne pas, ne pas) / in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the negation ne pas is more natural than the

negation ne pas.Behaghel's Law (Behaghel 1932, 4).1.2. >sem (+finite, -finite) / verbI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a finite verb is more natural than an infinite

verb. (Mayerthaler et al. 1993, 145.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (+finite, infinitive) / verbI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a finite verb is more natural than an

infinitive.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


47/233

EXAMPLES

I.e. with respect to coding properties, the negation ne pas is more natural than thenegation ne pas, in French.Behaghel's Law (Behaghel 1932, 4).

1.2. >sem (more frequent, less frequent) / unitI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a more frequent unit is more natural than a

less frequent unit. (In the spirit of G. Fenk-Oczlon 1991.)

A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem ('be' as copula, 'have' as modal and in formulas; most other verballexemes) / in French

I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, 'be' as copula, 'have' as modal and informulas are more natural than most other verbal lexemes, in French.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


Two special cases of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (ne pas, ne) / sentence negation in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the sentence negation ne pas is more natural

than the sentence negation ne, in French.1.1.2. >sym (-formula, +formula)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a non-formula is more natural than a formula.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym

47


48/233


2.2. sym (ne pas, ne (pas)) / sentence negation in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the sentence negation ne pas is more natural

than the sentence negation ne (pas), in French.1.2. >sem (more frequent, less frequent) / unitI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a more frequent unit is more natural than a

less frequent unit. (In the spirit of G. Fenk-Oczlon 1991.)A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sem (POUVOIR, SAVOIR, CESSER, OSER; most other verbal lexemes) / in

FrenchI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the verbs POUVOIR, SAVOIR, CESSER,

OSER are more natural than most other verbal lexemes, in French.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


49/233

EXAMPLES

3.2. If there is any difference between the sentence negation ne pas and thesentence negation ne (pas), such that one negates POUVOIR, SAVOIR, CESSER,OSER, and the other negates "other" verbs, it is the sentence negation ne (pas) thattends to negate the verbsPOUVOIR, SAVOIR, CESSER, OSER . Q.E.D.

4. Note. Cf. deductions 36-8 and 40-1.

40. French. In the standard language, outside formulaic expressions and POUVOIRetc., the normal sentence negation is ne pas, e.g. il ne vient pas 'he is not coming.'Under inversion of the subject and the verb, the sentence negation is weakened to (ne)

pas, e.g. (ne) vient-il pas 'is he not coming.' (Examples from Hock 1991, 360-1. Cf.Grevisse 1993, 1445 ff.)

The two syntactic variants: the sentence negation ne pas, and the sentence negation(ne) pas.



A special case of 1.1:

1.1.1. >sym (ne pas, (ne) pas) / sentence negation in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the sentence negation ne pas is more naturalthan the sentence negation (ne) pas, in French.

1.2. >sem (VS, SV) / interrogative clause in FrenchI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the element order verb - subject is more

natural than the element order subject - verb, in French interrogative clauses.See item 4.1of this deduction.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sem

(declarative, interrogative) / sentential mode (Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 326) and >sem (SV,VS) / SVO-languages. According to these two scales, the normal element order ofinterrogative clauses is VS.

4.2. Cf. deductions 36-9 and 41.

41. French. In the standard language, outside formulaic expressions and POUVOIRetc., the normal sentence negation is ne pas, e.g. il ne vient pas 'he is not coming.' Ifthe sentence negation associates with a non-verb, it is just pas, e.g.pas de bruit 'no noise,please.' (Examples from Hock 1991, 360-1. Cf. Grevisse 1993, 1446-7.)

49


50/233


The two syntactic variants: the clause negation ne pas, and the phrase negationpas.1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency

is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency.

(Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency seeMayerthaler 1987, 49.)Two special cases of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (ne pas,pas) / negation in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the negation ne pas is more natural than the

negationpas, in French.1.1.2. >sym (clause, phrase) / negatedI.e. with respect to coding properties, a negated clause is more natural than a negated

phrase.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym2.2. sym (the type les mecs, the typeJean) / vocative in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type les mecs is more natural than the type

Jean, as vocative in French.1.2. >sem (proper noun, common noun)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a proper name is more natural than a

common noun.According to the animacy hierarchy (Croft 1990, 112, with references).2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with


51/233

EXAMPLES

3. The consequences:From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced:3.1. If there is any difference between the type Jean (proper noun) and the type les

mecs (common noun) as vocatives, such that one type contains a determiner, and the othertype not, it is the type les mecs that tends to contain a determiner. Q.E.D.

From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between the type Jean (proper noun) and the type lesmecs (common noun) as vocatives, such that one type contains a determiner, and the othertype not, it is the typeJean that tends not to contain a determiner. Q.E.D.

43. French. Personal pronouns. Gender is indicated (a) in third person singular only(English, German), (b) in third person only (French), (c) in third person and pluralgenerally (Spanish), (d) in all persons, singular and plural, except first (Arabic). (Lyons1999, 137.) Case (b) is treated in the present deduction. Case (a) is dealt with in deduction57, case (c) in deduction 210. Case (d) is considered in deduction 6.

The two syntactic variants: personal pronoun of the third person, and the personalpronouns of the non-third person.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (+third, -third) / grammatical personI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the third person is more natural than the

non-third person. (According to the linguistic tradition beginning with Jakobson 1932.)1.2. >sem (+visible, -visible) / gender in languages that show gender distinctionsI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, visible gender is more natural than non-

visible gender, in languages that show gender distinctions.If a language has genderdistinctions, the most natural option is for them to be visible.



52/233


I.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparencyis more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency.(Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency seeMayerthaler 1987, 49.)

A special case of 1.1:

1.1.1. >sym (the type une bicyclette moi, the type ma bicyclette) / in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the type une bicyclette moi is more naturalthan the type ma bicyclette, in French.

1.2. >sem (+presupposed, -presupposed)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +presupposed is more natural than


Everything definite is presupposed.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sem (genitive, other cases) / case dependent on a head noun, in nom.-acc. langu-

agesI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the genitive is more natural than other cases

dependent on a head noun, in nominative-accusative languages.The genitive is theadnominal casepar excellence .

1.2. >sem (+presupposed, -presupposed)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, +presupposed is more natural than


52


53/233

EXAMPLES

Everything definite is presupposed.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


54/233


4. Note.Mutatis mutandis , the deduction also applies to the Spanish no es problema 'itis not a problem,' with omitted indefinite article, compared to es un problema 'it is aproblem,' Es un problema? 'is it a problem.' (Lyons 1999, 105, partly referring to Butt &C. Benjamin.)

47. French. In the example-sentence nous avons rapproch la montagne 'we broughtthe mountain close,' the object la montagne 'the mountain' is totally affected. In theexample-sentence nous nous sommes rapprochs de la montagne 'we approached themountain,' the object de la montagne is not affected. (Hopper & S. Thompson 1980, 262.)

The two syntactic variants: the affected object la montagne, and the non-affectedobject de la montagne.



A special case of 1.1:1.1.1. >sym (de la montagne, la montagne) / object in FrenchI.e. with respect to coding properties, the object de la montagne is more natural than

the object la montagne, in French.1.2. >sem (+affected, -affected) / objectI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, an affected object is more natural than a non-

affected object. (In the spirit of Hopper & S. Thompson 1980 passim.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sym tends to associate with sem (oui, si) / in FrenchI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the yes-word oui is more natural than the

yes-word si, in French.This is based on the circumstance that si is used in answers to

negative yes-no questions, which lack a special yes-word in many languages.1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency

54


55/233

EXAMPLES


A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sym (+expandable, -expandable) / syntactic unit

I.e. with respect to coding properties, an expandable syntactic unit is more naturalthan a non-expandable syntactic unit. - The ability to expand involves the tendency toenhance transparency.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with sem (reflexive, personal) / pronoun expressing reflexivityI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, a reflexive pronoun is more natural than a

personal pronoun, as an expression of reflexivity.1.2. >sem (+third, -third) / grammatical personI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the third grammatical person is more natural

than the non-third grammatical person. (According to the linguistic tradition beginning

with Jakobson 1932.)2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2.


56/233


flattent 'they flatter themselves' and 'they flatter each other.' If disambiguation isnecessary, the reciprocal pronoun is expanded, e.g. ils se flattent l'un l'autre 'they flatterone another.' (Schachter 1985, 29-30.)Similarly in Slovenian (Milena Milojevi-Sheppard viva voce, 1999).

The two syntactic variants: the reflexive type ils se flattent, and the reciprocal type ils

se flattent (l'un l'autre).1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (reflexive use, reciprocal use) / of the same pronounI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the reflexive use of a pronoun is more natural

than the reciprocal use of the same pronoun.This is based on the admittedly slimevidence that the reciprocal pronoun of Akan (a Congo-Kordofanian language in Ghana)is a doubling of the reflexive pronoun. (The Akan data from Schachter 1985, 29.)

1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


A special case of 1.2:1.2.1. >sym (+expandable, -expandable) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, an expandable syntactic unit is more natural

than a non-expandable syntactic unit.The ability to expand involves the tendency towardstransparency.

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with


57/233

EXAMPLES

accented + clitic, in French.The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A).1.2. >sem (+third, -third) / grammatical personI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the third grammatical person is more natural

than the non-third grammatical person. (According to the linguistic tradition beginningwith Jakobson 1932.)

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem2.2. sym (accented form, clitic form) / personal pronounI.e. with respect to coding properties, any accented form of the personal pronoun is

more natural than the corresponding clitic form.1.2. >sem (+third, -third) / grammatical personI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the third grammatical person is more natural

than the non-third grammatical person. (According to the linguistic tradition beginningwith Jakobson 1932.)



58/233


pronoun is used in the third person, and the other kind of pronoun is used in the non-thirdperson, it is in the non-third person that the accented form tends to be used. Q.E.D.

From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between the use of the accented accusative pronoun and

the use of the clitic accusative pronoun in the imperative clause, such that one kind of

pronoun is used in the third person, and the other kind of pronoun is used in the non-thirdperson, it is in the third person that the clitic form tends to be used. Q.E.D.

53. French. The equivalent of English question tags (e.g. You haven't eaten, haveyou?) is a single formulaic expression: n'est-ce pas is that not. Similarly in German: nichtwahr not true. Similarly in many other languages. (Schachter 1985, 33.) In Slovenian:kajne and some other alternatives (Toporii 1976, 385; 2000, 445; Herrity 2000, 323-4).In non-standard British English: innit, etymologically connected with isn't itand possiblywith ain't it(Biber et al. 1999, 1122-3).

The two syntactic variants: the clause preceding the question tag, and the question tagviewed as a partial repetition of the clause.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sem (repetition, its original)I.e. with respect to semantic complexity, repetition is more natural than its original.

58


59/233

EXAMPLES

This is based on the fact that a repetition is easily retrievable from memory, and onthe circumstance that repetition is imitation, which is speakers' innate ability (Li 1986, 40-1).

1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency


Two special cases of 1.2:1.2.1. >sym (-formula, +formula)I.e. with respect to coding properties, a non-formula is more natural than a formula.1.2.2. >sym (-short, +short) / syntactic unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a non-short syntactic unit is more natural than a

short syntactic unit.2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants:2.1. >sem tends to associate with sem (nominative, accusative) / in nom.-acc. languagesI.e. with respect to semantic complexity, the nominative case is more natural than the

accusative case, in nominative-accusative languages.This follows from the basic pro-perties of nominative-accusative languages.

1.2. >sym (nominative singular lacking desinence, nominative singular containingdesinence)

I.e. with respect to coding properties, the nominative singular lacking any desinence ismore natural than the nominative singular containing a desinence. (Mayerthaler 1981,28.)

2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two morphologicalvariants:

2.1. >sym tends to associate with


60/233


From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced:3.1. If there is any difference between the nominative singular with and without desi-

nence, such that one kind of nominative keeps the form of the nominative, and the otherkind of nominative assumes the form of the accusative, it is the nominative singular with-out desinence that tends to assume the form of the corresponding accusative. Q.E.D.

From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced:3.2. If there is any difference between the nominative singular with and without desi-nence, such that one kind of nominative keeps the form of the nominative, and the otherkind of nominative assumes the form of the accusative, it is the nominative singular withdesinence that tends to keep the form of the old nominative singular. Q.E.D.

55. German. De-verbal nouns as subjects associate with conspicuously few verbs only,e.g. Apollo-Flug 'flight of Apollo' with erfolgen 'take place, transpire.' (B. Sandig 1971,41. Her list of such verbs contains no more than five almost synonymous items, but ismarked as incomplete.)

The two syntactic variants: subject associating with many verbs, and subject asso-ciating with few verbs.

1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory:1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / morphological unitI.e. with respect to coding properties, a morphological unit of greater transparency is

more natural than a corresponding morphological unit of lesser transparency.(Mayerthaler 1981, 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998, 186. On the notion of transparency seeMayerthaler 1987, 49.)

A special case of 1.1:1.1.1.

a predictable aspect of (morpho)syntactic variants

Documents