PowerPoint

Diachronic Interpretations of Word Order Parameter Cohesion

John Whitman (NINJAL Cornell)Yohei Ono (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies)DiGSXV 2013.8.1University of Ottawajbw@ninjal.ac.jp1

1. Basic ideaA long tradition in the functional/typological literature attributes crosscategorial consituent order generalizations on word order to a language change (Givon 1975, Aristar 1991).

Suppose this idea is right. 21. Basic questionsTwo questions still remain:

(i)Exactly what constituent order properties cohere?

(ii)Why those properties?31. Basic ideaThis paper sets out to investigate these questions based on a statistical investigation of latent interrelationships between typological parameters (features) in WALS (Dryer and Haspelmath 2011) (Ono et al 2013).41.1. RoadmapCross-categorial word order generalizations (CWOGs) are statisticalCWOGs in a factor/cluster analysis of typological parametersSignificant CWOGs are limited to head-argument orderThis is meaningful for understanding how syntactic change produces CWOGs

52.1Cross-categorial word order generalizations (Greenberg 1963/6, Dryer 1999)Cross-categorial word order generalizations (CWOGs) are a subtype of implicational universal that relates the internal constituent order properties of distinct categories.

62.1 Cross-categorial word order generalizationsExample: Greenbergs (1963/6) Universal 3

Universal 3. Languages with dominant VSO order are always prepositional. (Greenberg 1966: 78).

72.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalWe have much more data about constituent order typology than we did 50 years ago. Universal 3 is statistical.

Greenberg himself (1963: 107) cites Papago (O'odham)as an exception to Universal 3. More counterexamples are provided by Payne (1986). Dryer in Haspelmath et al (2005) lists 6 languages which are postpositional with dominant VSO order (out of a total of 38 postpositional languages with dominant VO order).82.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalThe same is true for more complex CWOGs that appeared to be exceptionless 50 years ago.

Universal 5. If a language has dominant SOV order and the genitive follows the governing noun, then the adjective likewise follows the noun. (Greenberg 1966: 79).

92.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalPlank (2003) credits Dryer for the observation that Tigre counterexemplifies Universal #5. Tigre has OV, noun-genitive, and adjective-noun order.

(2) Tigre NP internal order (Raz 1983: 95) a. Galab 't 'tyopya lattrakkab [hatte n'is dgge] ta. Galab in Ethiopia which is found one small town Galab is a small town which is found in Ethiopia.b. 'Aze hatte m l 't [hday 'ad wa'aga] fararaw Now oneday to wed party family guenon 3PL.went One day they went out to the wedding party of the family of the guenon.102.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalEven CWOGs whose exceptions are very, very token-rare give no evidence for being difficult to acquire. For example,

(3) VO -> N Rel

is counterexemplified by only 5 languages out of 705 VO languages in Dryer & Haspelmath (2011). 3 are Sinitic, 1 (Bai) heavily and 1 (Amis) possibly influenced by Chinese. Yet altogether, well over a billion speakers acquire this order. There is no evidence that this or other rare consitutent orders are difficult to acquire.112.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalCWOGs also have a peculiar theoretical status. Suppose that Complement Head order is generated by leftward movement of the complement to Spec of a functional projection (Kayne 1994, Chomsky 1995):

(4) FP[ XP YP[ Y tXP ]]

It is not obvious why (or how) functional projections in completely distinct categories (e.g. VP and PP) should trigger the same movement.122.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalThe original formal expression of CWOGs, the Head Parameter (Chomsky 1981) was a meta-constraint on d-structure. But that level of representation no longer exists in contemporary derivational theories.132. Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalCWOGs are not the only kind of generalization bearing on word order. Whitman (2008) distinguishes 3 types of generalizations.

Cross-categorial generalizations (CWOGs)Hierarchical generalizationsDerivational generalizations142. Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalHierarchical generalizations are the type of generalization targeted by Cartography (Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999), Rizzi 2004 and many others).Insofar as heads and their specifiers high in the structure are spelled out on the left, hierarchical generalizations affect constituent order. 152. Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalGreenbergs Universal 1 is a hierarchical generalization.

Universal 1. In declarative sentences with nominal subject and object, the dominant order is always one in which the subject precedes the object. (Greenberg 1966: 76).162. Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalDerivational generalizations affect constituent order through constraints on possible derivations. Greenbergs Universal 7 can be understood this way.Universal 7. If in a language with dominant SOV order, there is no alternative basic order, or only OSV as the alternative, then all adverbial modifiers of the verb likewise precede the verb. (This is the rigid subtype of III.) (Greenberg 1966: 78)172.2 Cross-categorial word order generalizations are statisticalSuppose complement-head order is derived by movement of the complement to a higher spec. There are two scenarios:

(5) NPSUBJ [NPOBJ [ V tOBJ ...]] (SOVX Mandic)

(6) NPSUBJ[[... NPOB tV ...]VP [V...tVP ]] (Japanese)182.3 Harmony and disharmonyRecently, Biberauer et al (2011) have proposed a more sophisticated constraint on constituent order disharmonies: situations where head-complement order differs across categories in a single language. 192.3 Harmony and disharmonyBiberauer et als Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) rules out the case where a head-initial phrase is immediately dominated by a head-final phrase , where and are non-distinct in categorical features:( 7) *

P202.3 Harmony and disharmonyAs Biberauer et al point out, the FOFC can be understood as a derivational generalization, since it applies within a single derivation, as opposed to CWOGs, which must apply across distinct derivations. ( 7) *

P212.3 Harmony and disharmonyEven so, the FOFC is not secure. As van Riemsdijk (1990) shows, West Germanic cricumpositions have the constituency [PospositionalP [PrepositionalP Prep DP ] Postp] (cf. Djamouri et at 2013, to appear):

(8) [PostP [PreP unter der Brcke ] durch] under theDAT bridgeDATthrough through under the bridge222.4 CWOGs: SummaryCWOGs have exceptions. They are statistical.There is no evidence that exceptions to CWOGs (disharmonies) are hard to learn.As such, CWOGs are not good candidates for components of UG.Hierarchical and derivational generalizations account for many word order generalizations. They are good candidates for components of UG.The functional/typological view of residual CWOGs is right. They are byproducts of syntactic change.

232.5 CWOGs from syntactic reanalysisDiachronic explanations CWOGs are proposed by Givon (1975, 1979) and are the focus of Aristar (1991).

242.5 CWOGs from syntactic reanalysisCategorySourceExampleCompVerbEnglish I should of gone (Kayne 1997)CompAdpositionEnglish for + infinitiveAuxMain verbEnglish willPVerbEnglish likePRelational nounEnglish go [back the farm]252.5 CWOGs from syntactic reanalysisPartial List of Chinese Ps (Djamouri et al 2013) a.Preposition b.Postpostionchofacinghubehind; aftercng fromlifor, duringdng(zhe)at, facinglindotoniinside, withindutowardpngnext to, at the side ofduywith respectqinin front of; beforegi to; forqinhuaroundgnwithshngongnjaccording toshngxiaround, aboutguny concerningwioutside, beyondlfrom, awayxiundertinstead of, foryhuafter (temporal)wngin the direction ofylisince, duringwi(le)for the sake ofyniinside, withinxingin the direction ofyqinbefore, agoyn(zhe)alongyshngabove, overzi in, atywioutside, beyond262.5 CWOGs from syntactic reanalysisReanalysis of Chinese relational nouns as Ps (Djamouri et al 2013) (9) (Guanzi 859/3, 1st c. BCE)[DP sn yu zh hu] three month gen posteriority After three months (10) (Hanshu , 2nd c. CE)rn dng zi [PostP shy yu hu] leap:month must be:at 11 month afterThe leap month must occur after the eleventh month.272.6. CWOGs from reanalysis: summaryWell-attested casesV > Aux, P, C; N > P, C

Less clear casesv[noml] > vP(Claudi 1993, 1994 for Niger-Congo; Aldridge this conference for Austronesian)283. A factor/cluster analysis of parameters in WALS online (Ono et al 2013) Investigates interrelationships values of 225 parameters (features) for 236 languages in The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (Dryer & Haspelmath 2011). First applies a non-metric factor analysis called Hayashis Quantification Method III to identify latent relationships between WALS feature values Next applies a standard clustering technique (Wall 1963) to the output of QMIII.293.1 A factor/cluster analysis of feature values in WALS online (Ono et al 2013) BC

30

3.1 The full story (Ono et al 2013)

31

3.1 Quantification Method : Demonstrated for 2 dimensional space

3.1 QM applied to WALS feature values (2 dimensions)

3.1 Cluster analysis applied to the output of QMIII3. NtayLlamL-pheHL-koLF ktayL-muLF ceLF-sayL. this thing-obj-top who-even know-vsm This, anyone knows. (Jingphaw; Ohnishi 2012: 175)

34

3.1 Result: Salient clusters (red circles)

3.1 The highest order clusters again (Ono et al 2013) BC

36

3.2 Cluster A: Head-initial WO values FeatureTitleValueDomainX37A_1Definite ArticlesDefinite word distinct from demonstrativeNominal CategoriesX81A_2Order of Subject, Object and VerbSVOWord OrderX83A_2Order of Object and VerbVOWord OrderX84A_1Order of Object, Oblique, and VerbVOXWord OrderX85A_2Order of Adposition and Noun PhrasePrepositionsWord OrderX86A_2Order of Genitive and NounNoun-GenitiveWord OrderX90A_1Order of Relative Clause and NounNoun-Relative clauseWord OrderX90C_1Postnominal relative clausesNoun-Relative clause (NRel) dominantWord OrderX94A_1Order of Adverbial Subordinator and ClauseInitial subordinator wordWord OrderX95A_4Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adposition and Noun PhraseVO and PrepositionsWord OrderX96A_4Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Relative Clause and NounVO and NRelWord OrderX97A_4Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adjective and NounVO and NAdjWord OrderX144H_4NegSVO OrderNo NegSVOWord OrderX144J_7SVNegO OrderNo SVNegOWord OrderX144K_4SVONeg OrderNo SVONegWord Order3.2 Cluster B (1): Head-final WO valuesFeatureTitleValueDomainX29A_1Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number MarkingNo subject person/number markingMorphologyX40A_1Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Verbal InflectionNo person markingNominal CategoriesX81A_1Order of Subject, Object and VerbSOVWord OrderX83A_1Order of Object and VerbOVWord OrderX85A_1Order of Adposition and Noun PhrasePostpositionsWord OrderX86A_1Order of Genitive and NounGenitive-NounWord OrderX95A_1Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adposition and Noun PhraseOV and PostpositionsWord OrderX97A_2Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adjective and NounOV and NAdjWord OrderX100A_1Alignment of Verbal Person MarkingNeutralSimple ClausesX102A_1Verbal Person MarkingNo person markingSimple ClausesX103A_1Third Person Zero of Verbal Person MarkingNo person markingSimple ClausesX112A_1Negative MorphemesNegative affixSimple ClausesX126A_3'When' ClausesDerankedComplex SentencesX143E_4Preverbal Negative MorphemesNoneWord OrderCluster B (2): Head-final WO valuesFeatureTitleValueDomainX143F_2Postverbal Negative Morphemes[V-Neg]Word OrderX144A_20Position of Negative Word With Respect to Subject, Object, and VerbMorphNegWord OrderX144P_4NegSOV OrderNo NegSOVWord OrderX144Q_4SNegOV OrderNo SNegOVWord OrderX144R_8SONegV OrderNo SONegVWord OrderX144S_11SOVNeg OrderNoSOVNegWord Order3.2 Cluster A classification accuraciesFeatureValueClassification accuracy37A[definite word distinct from demonstrative]:63%81A[SVO]:92%83A[VO]:92%84A[VOX]: Could not be evaluated, as 47% of languages lack data.85A[Prepositions]:92%86A[Noun-Genitive]:84%90A[Noun-Relative clause]:74%90C[NRel dominant]: Could not be evaluated, as 41% of lgs. lack data. 94A[Initial subordinator word]:81%95A[VO and Prepositions]:89%96A[VO and NRel:76%97A[VO and NAdj]:62%144[No NegSVO]: Could not be evaluated , as 70% of lgs lack data.144J[No SVNegO]: Could not be evaluated, as 68% of lgs lack data.144K[No SVONeg]: Could not be evaluated, as 68% of lgs lack data.403.2 Cluster B classification accuracies (1)FeatureValue Classification accuracy 29A:[No subject person/number marking]36%40A:[No person marking]38%81A[SOV]:92%83A[OV]:92%85A[Postpositions]:92%86A[Genitive-Noun]:84%95A[OV and Postpositions]:89%97A[OV and NAdj]:62%

413.2 Cluster B classification accuracies (2)FeatureValue Classification accuracy100A:[Neutral]38%102A:[No Person Marking]38%103A:[No Person Marking]39%112A:[Negative affix]58%126A:[When clauses]42%143E:[None]60%143F:[V-Neg]62%144A:[MorphNeg]61%144P:Could not be evaluated, as 58% of lgs lack data.144Q:Could not be evaluated, as 58% of lgs lack data.144R: Could not be evaluated, as 58% of lgs lack data.144S:Could not be evaluated, as 56% of lgs lack data.

423.2 Cluster CContains by far the largest number of feature values (107)Contains feature values in all subareas (phonology, morphology, lexicon)Contains primarily unmarked values: 1A2 Consonant inventory: Moderately small 1A3 Consonant inventory: Average 17A1 Rhythm type: Trochaic 82A1 Order of subject and verb: SV433.2 Cluster DResidual values not in A-C443.3 Assessment of the factor/cluster analysisConstituent order features are completely dominant.Other features often proposed for whole language classifications (e.g. head/dependent marking) are absent from the highest order clusters.Highest order cluster: entirely head-initial valuesSecond order cluster: mostly head-final values.Subset of constituent order features in A, B contains: V OV- PC TP (A only) V Neg B only, weak)Deranked when clauses (B only, weak)454. Significant CWOGs are limited to head-argument order81AOrder of subject, object, and verb92%83AOrder of object and verb92%85AOrder of adposition and NP92%95AOrder of object and verb and P and NP89%86AOrder of genitive and noun84%94AInitial subordinator word]:81%

464. Significant CWOGs are limited to head-argument orderWOGs bearing on specifiers alone show up in C, the unmarked cluster.

X82A Order of Subject and VerbSVX88A Order of Dem and NN-Dem

474. Significant CWOGs are limited to head-argument orderWOGs bearing on modifiers alone show up in C, the unmarked cluster, or in both A and B.

X87A Order of N-AdjN-Adj (C)X97A Order of O-V and order of N-AdjN-Adj (A, B)

485. Diachronic interpretationThe most robust CWOGs are limited to head-complement orders.These correspond to the well-known relabeling-type reanalyses (V > P, N > P, V/P/N > C etc.).The link between VP internal order and NP internal order is limited to order of noun and genitive.This is consistent with the hypothesis that reanalysis of nominalizations as verbal categories is responsible for CWOGs involving nominal and verbal projections.

49ReferencesAristar, Anthony R. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic patterns: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals. Language 67: 1-33.Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian 2012. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195-236Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrect: Foris.Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cysouw, M. 2005. Quantitative methods in typology. In Altmann, G., Khler, R., and Piotrowski, R. (eds.), Quantitative Linguistik: ein internationales Handbuch, 554578. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Cysouw, M. 2007. New approaches to cluster analysis of typological indices. In Reinhard Khler & Peter Grzbek (eds.), Exact Methods in the Study of Language and Text. (Quantitative Linguistics 62), 61-76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Dryer, M. 1988. Universals of negative position. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik. E. and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 93124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.50ReferencesDryer, Matthew S. 1997. Why Statistical Universals are better than AbsoluteUniversals. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 33(2): 123-145.Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language 68.1: 81-138..Dryer, M. 2011. The evidence for word order correlations. Linguistic Typology 15. 335 380.Dryer, M. 2011. Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Adjective and Noun. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 97. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/97. Accessed on 2013-06-30.Dryer, M. Nichols, J. and Bickel. B. 2011. Locus of marking in the clause. In Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 23. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/23. Accessed on 2013-07-2.Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/ Accessed on 2012-07-02. Givon, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. in C. Li, ed., Word order and word order change, pp. 47-112. Austin: University of Texas Press. Greenberg, J. 1963/6. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language, MIT Press.51ReferencesHayashi, C. 1951. On the prediction of phenomena from qualitative data and the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 3(1), 69-98.Kayne, Richard.1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard.1997. The English Complementizer of. Journal ofComparative Germanic Linguistics, 1, 43-54.Ono, Yohei, Whitman, John, Yoshino, Ryozo, and Hayashi, Fumi. 2013, under review. Investigating Latent Interrelationships between Typological Features: A factor/clustering analysis of feature values in WALS. Plank, Franz. 2003. The Universals Archive. Sprachwissenschaft, Universitt Konstanz. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/ sprachbau.htm.Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Harm Pinkster and Inge Genee (eds.). Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his fiftieth birthday. Dordrecht: Foris, 229-241.Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol.3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52ReferencesUeda, S. and Itoh, Y. 1995. The Classification of Languages by the two Parameter Model for Word Ordering Rule (in Japanese). Proceedings of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics. 43, 2, 341-365.Ward, J. 1963. Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 236244. Whitman, John. 2008. The classification of constituent order generalizations and diachronic explanation. 2008. In Good, J. (ed.), Language Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53