Cover not available

In:Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
► pp. 59–100

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 3
Universal underpinnings of language-specific categories

A useful heuristic for discovering and comparing categories of grammar and beyond

 | ICREA | UPF
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.03wil
The goal of this paper is to argue that the assumption that there are universal underpinnings for the construction of language specific categories is a useful, if not necessary assumption for the discovery and comparison of categories. Specifically, I will explore three empirical domains:
i.
grammatical categories of the familiar kind (e.g., tense, voice, demonstrative, etc.);
ii.
categories associated with the language of interaction (e.g., sentence final tags, response particles, interjections, etc.), and
iii.
categories that express emotions (e.g., ideophones, certain types of intonational tunes, expressives, etc.)
The argument will be developed as follows.
I start by introducing the framework for the analysis of grammatical categories I have developed in Wiltschko 2014. This approach seeks to reconcile the tension between the two opposing views which this volume addresses: typologists observe that languages differ in their categorial inventories but some linguists (especially of the generative tradition) assume that there is a core which all languages share, including a set of universal categories. The key to reconciling this tension, I argue, is to assume that the categories we observe are always constructed on a language-specific basis, but that there are some universal building blocks involved in their construction, namely the universal spine, a hierarchically organized set of functions which is at the core of constructing sentential meanings. The spine has to be associated with units of language (I use the term unit of language as opposed to morpheme or word because I include – among other things - features as well and intonational tunes in the set of elements that can associate with the spine). Familiar grammatical categories are constructed via this association: that is, units of language per se do not form grammatical categories, they do so only in interaction with the spine. It follows that grammatical categories will always be language-specific, since the units of language are language-specific (for traditional morphemes this follows from the Saussurian assumption that the relation between form and meaning is arbitrary – hence must be conventionalized on a language specific basis). What this assumption allows us to do is to compare language-specific categories via a third element (Humboldt’s tertium comparationis), namely the spine. Comparing language-specific categories directly to each other is typically meaning-based, but categories of similar meaning do not always have the same distribution and hence cannot be classified as universal categories (assuming that the hallmark of units of language of the same category is that they display the same distributional patterns).
I then proceed to show that the same framework can be used for the discovery and comparison of categories which are not typically assumed to be part of grammar proper: interactive and emotive categories. I first show that they, too, display the patterns of grammatical categories: we find classes of UoLs which enter into syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations; and they display patterns of contrast and patterns of multi-functionality.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The (non-) universality of categories
    • 2.1An analytical conundrum
    • 2.2A theoretical controversy
      • 2.2.1The generativists’ take on categories
      • 2.2.2The typologists’ take on categories
    • 2.3The significance of distributional (formal) patterns
      • 2.3.1Patterns of multi-functionality
      • 2.3.2Patterns of contrast
  • 3.Why do languages categorize their UoLs and how?
    • 3.1The universal spine hypothesis
    • 3.2Universal ingredients of categorization
  • 4.Beyond grammatical categories: The categories of interaction
    • 4.1The extended universal spine
    • 4.2Confirmationals, response markers, and other categories of interactional language
      • 4.2.1A syntactic analysis of sentence final eh?
      • 4.2.2The paradigmatic organization of sentence final particles. Evidence from Mandarin
      • 4.2.3The functional equivalence of particles and intonation
    • 4.3How sound is meaning
    • 4.4The category of huh
  • 5.Conclusion: How to do typology
  • Notes
  • References
References (79)
References
Ambar, Manuela. 1999. Aspects of focus in Portuguese. In The Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], George Rebuschi & Laurie Tuller (eds), 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen 1971. On the Linguistic Status of the Performative/Constative Distinction. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beyssade, Claire & Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2006. The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami Patricia & Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 37–68. [URL]
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2013. Third person pronouns and demonstratives. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (30 August 2019).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause Hierarchy and Clause Linking: Syntax and Pragmatics [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bong, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds), 3–13. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1991. Introduction. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 1 [Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40–1], Franz Boas (ed.). Washington DC: Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ceong, Hailey Hyekyeong. 2019. The Morphosyntax of Clause Typing: Single, Double, Periphrastic, and Multifunctional Complementizers in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Victoria.
Chappell, Hilary & Peyraube, Alain. 2016. Modality and mood in sinitic. In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 296–339. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia. 2010. Splitting up force evidence from discourse particles. Linguistics 20: 7–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1999. Prototypical inflection: Implications for typology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1998, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–22. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décenbrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds), 1–11. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91: 145–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Fedden, Sebastian. 2016. Canonical gender. Journal of Linguistics 52: 495–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & Poole, Keith T. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1): 1–38.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher. 2011. Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 4.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Torreira, Francisco & Enfield, Nicholas J. 2013. Is ‘Huh?’ a universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PLOS ONE, 9(4).
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2020. Between sound and speech: Liminal signs in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(1): 188–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal ? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givòn, Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo. 1997. The Grammatical Representation of Speech Events. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Bergqvist, Henrik & San Roque, Lila. 2017a. The grammar of engagement, I: framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1): 1–31Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017b. The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10(1): 141–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1974. An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujimori, Atsushi. 2011. The correspondence between vowel quality and verbal telicity in Yamato-Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Gold, Elaine & Tremblay, Mireille. 2006. Eh? and hein? Discourse particles or national icons? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2–3): 247–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. West flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 116–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 370–390. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virgina. 2014. Vocatives and speech act projections: A case study in West Flemish. In On Peripheries. Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds), 209–236. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86: 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes. 2019 Commitment and Engagement: The Role of Intonation in Deriving Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Mam, Osa-Gómez, Adriana, Thoma, Sonja & Wiltschko, Martina. Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(2): 109–129.
Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface. Lingua 117: 2077–2105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1983. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3: 40–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.), 151–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America since 1925. Washington DC: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2011. Mental spaces in the Korean reportive/quotative evidentiality marker-ay. Discourse and Cognition 18(2): 23–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1976. Metalanguage, pragmatics and performatives. In Semantics: Theory and Application, Cléa Rameh (ed.), 81–98. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2005. Submorphematische Motiviertheit als Grammatikalisierungsergebnis: Zur Grammatikalisierung von Reflexivpronomen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32: 233–244.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Torreira, Francisco. 2015. Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., Thompson, Sandra A. & Zhang, Bojiang. 1998. Cong huayu jiaodu lunzheng yuqici ‘de’ (On modal particle ‘de’ from the perspective of conversation). Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Linguistics) 2: 93–102Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1976. Grammar and illocutionary force. Lingua 40: 21–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11: 133–157.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R. & Sadler, L. 2004. Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language 776–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. 2014. Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68: 77–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–107. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritter, Elisabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–1386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222–272. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers Tania, Enfield, Nicholas J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto et al.. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 10587–10592.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thoma, Sonja C. 2016. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse-evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language 83(4): 831–869. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. Semantics of intonation. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2039–2069. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakefield, John. 2010. The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis. PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
. 2012. A floating tone discourse morpheme: The English equivalent of Cantonese lo1 . Lingua 122: 1739–1762. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Fang. 2009. “‘Ma’ de yuqi yiyi shuolyue” (A brief introduction of the pragmatic meaning of ma). Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology (Higher Education Edition) 4(11): 90–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61: 747–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Reconciling uncertainty with incredulity: A unified account of the L*+H LH% intonational contour. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, 27–30 December.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory. Lingua 113: 659–696. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. On number in Halkomelem Salish or The problem with “the two man’ . In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Americas (WSCLA IX) [UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 15], Christine Ravinski & Yunhee Chung (eds), 143–158. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Toward a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 419–446. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals. In Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenbock, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 305–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, Denis, Derek & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2018. Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function: A transdisciplinary case study. Language in Society 47: 569–599. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. In preparation. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Towards a typology of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Zu, Vera. 2015. A two-tiered theory of the discourse. In Proceedings of the Poster Session of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 151–160. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue