The language faculty that wasn't: a usage-based account of natural language recursion Morten H. Christiansen , Nick Chater. Trevor Johnston. Making sense of syntax — Innate or acquired? Contrasting universal grammar with other approaches to language acquisition Christian Kliesch. Voices of vanishing worlds: Endangered languages, orality, and cognition Mark Turin. Design features of language emerge from general-purpose learning mechanisms Padraic Monaghan.
Hung , Denise H. References Publications referenced by this paper. Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children.
- Feminist Social Work Theory and Practice.
- RELATED WORDS?
- What Will He Do with It? — Volume 10;
- The Dolly Ballads - Illustrated by Frank Chesworth!
- language universal.
Laurence B. Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets. Iris Berent. Introduction: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: posturals, positionals, and other beasts Felix K. Ameka , Stephen C.
The biology and evolution of music: A comparative perspective. Marc D. In a bidirectional universal two features each imply the existence of each other. For example, languages with postpositions usually have SOV order, and likewise SOV languages usually have postpositions.
Linguistic Universals - Bibliography - PhilPapers
The implication works both ways, and thus the universal is bidirectional. By contrast, in a unidirectional universal the implication works only one way.
Languages that place relative clauses before the noun they modify again usually have SOV order, so pre-nominal relative clauses imply SOV. On the other hand, SOV languages worldwide show little preference for pre-nominal relative clauses, and thus SOV implies little about the order of relative clauses. As the implication works only one way, the proposed universal is a unidirectional one. Linguistic universals in syntax are sometimes held up as evidence for universal grammar although epistemological arguments are more common.
Other explanations for linguistic universals have been proposed, for example, that linguistic universals tend to be properties of language that aid communication.
If a language were to lack one of these properties, it has been argued, it would probably soon evolve into a language having that property. Michael Halliday has argued for a distinction between descriptive and theoretical categories in resolving the matter of the existence of linguistic universals, a distinction he takes from J. Firth and Louis Hjelmslev. He argues that "theoretical categories, and their inter-relations construe an abstract model of language Descriptive categories, by contrast, are those set up to describe particular languages.
He argues that "When people ask about 'universals', they usually mean descriptive categories that are assumed to be found in all languages. The problem is there is no mechanism for deciding how much alike descriptive categories from different languages have to be before they are said to be 'the same thing'" .
In semantics , research into linguistic universals has taken place in a number of ways.
Numéros en texte intégral
Some linguists, starting with Gottfried Leibniz , have pursued the search for a hypothetic irreducible semantic core of all languages. A modern variant of this approach can be found in the natural semantic metalanguage of Anna Wierzbicka and associates. In a seminal study, Cecil H. Subsequent research has shown that most of these features have to be considered cross-linguistic tendencies rather than true universals.
Several languages like Tidore and Kuuk Thaayorre lack a general term meaning 'body'. On the basis of such data it has been argued that the highest level in the partonomy of body part terms would be the word for 'person'.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A personal perspective. London and New York: Continuum p Second-language acquisition.