連日，言語類型論 (typology) と言語普遍性 (universal) について話題にしている．言語普遍性といっても，その強度により，絶対的な普遍性もあれば，相対的，あるいは確率論的な普遍性もあると述べた．さらにいえば，普遍性には異なる種類のものがある．今回紹介するのは，Crystal (85) が区別している3種類の普遍性だ．それぞれ「実質的」「形式的」「含意的」と訳しておきたい．
Substantive
Substantive universals comprise the set of categories that is needed in order to analyse a language, such as 'noun', 'question', 'first-person', 'antonym', and 'vowel'. Do all languages have nouns and vowels? The answer seems to be yes. But certain categories often thought of as universal turn out not to be so: not all languages have case endings, prepositions, or future tenses, for example, and there are several surprising limitations on the range of vowels and consonants that typically occur . . . . Analytical considerations must also be borne in mind. Do all languages have words? The answer depends on how the concept of 'word' is defined . . . .
Formal
Formal universals are a set of abstract conditions that govern the way in which a language analysis can be made --- the factors that have to be written into a grammar, if it is to account successfully for the way sentences work in a language. For example, because all languages make statements and ask related questions (such as The car is ready vs Is the car ready?), some means has to be found to show the relationship between such pairs. Most grammars derive question structures from statement structures by some kind of transformation (in the above example, 'Move the verb to the beginning of the sentence'). If it is claimed that such transformations are necessary in order to carry out the analysis of these (and other kinds of) structures, as one version of Chomskyan theory does, then they would be proposed as formal universals. Other cases include the kinds of rules used in a grammar, or the different levels recognized by a theory . . . .
Implicational
Implicational universals always take the form 'If X, then Y', their intention being to find constant relationships between two or more properties of language. For example, three of the universals proposed in a list of 45 by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg (1915--) are as follows:
Universal 17. With overwhelmingly more-than-chance frequency, languages with dominant order VSO [=Verb-Subject-Object] have the adjective after the noun.
Universal 31. If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then the adjective always agrees with the noun in gender.
Universal 43. If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the pronoun.
As is suggested by the phrasing, implicational statements have a statistical basis, and for this reason are sometimes referred to as 'statistical' universals . . . .
以上の3種類の言語普遍性をまとめると次のようになるだろう．
1. 実質的普遍性 (Substantive universals): 名詞，疑問文，人称，母音など，言語分析に必要な基本的な範疇 (category) のこと．すべて言語に共通して存在する要素もあれば，前置詞や未来時制のように必ずしも普遍的でない要素もある．
2. 形式的普遍性 (Formal universals): 文の構造を説明するために必要な抽象的な条件や文法規則のこと．例えば，平叙文から疑問文への変換規則などが含まれ，チョムスキーの理論では，このような変形規則は形式的普遍性として扱われる．
3. 含意的普遍性 (Implicational universals): 「もし X ならば Y」という形式で表わされる言語特性間の関係のこと．統計的な傾向に基づいており，例えば VSO 語順の言語では形容詞が名詞の後に来る傾向がある等の指摘がなされる．
・ Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
昨日の記事「#5666. 歴史言語学，言語普遍性，言語類型論」 ([2024-10-31-1]) の最後に，言語学の各分野は「言語という山のトンネルを異なる方向から掘り進めているという違いがあるにすぎない」と述べた．言語類型論 (typology) と言語普遍性 (universal) の研究は，しかし，方法論的には大きく異なっている．前者はなるべく多くの言語を調査して異同点を収集するのに対して，後者は極端な場合には1言語のみを深く研究すれば事足りると主張するからだ．浅く広くか，深く狭くか．Crystal (85) が "BREADTH OR DEPTH?" と題する1節で論じている．
The distinction between typological and universalist approaches to language study is doubtless ultimately an arbitrary one; and both have considerable insights to offer. But the two approaches, as currently practised, differ greatly in their procedures. Typologists typically study a wide range of languages as part of their enquiry, and tend to make generalizations that deal with the more observable aspects of structure, such as word order, word classes, and types of sound. In contrast with the empirical breadth of such studies, universalists rely on in-depth studies of single languages, especially in the field of grammar --- English, in particular, is a common language of exemplification --- and tend to make generalizations about the more abstract, underlying properties of language.
This focus on single languages might at first seem strange. If we are searching for universals, then surely we need to study many languages? Chomsky argues, however, that there is no paradox. Because English is a human language, it must therefore incorporate all universal properties of language, as well as those individual features that make it specifically 'English'. One way of finding out about these properties, therefore, is the detailed study of single languages. The more languages we introduce into our enquiry, the more difficult it can become to see the central features behind the welter of individual difference.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the detailed study of single languages is inevitably going to produce a distorted picture. There are features of English, for example, that are not commonly met with in other languages, such as the use of only one inflectional ending in the present tense (third-person, as in she runs), or the absence of a second-person singular/plural distinction (cf. French tu/vous). Without a typological perspective, some say, it is not possible to anticipate the extent to which our sense of priorities will be upset. If languages were relatively homogeneous entities, like samples of iron ore, this would not be a problem. But, typologists argue, languages are unpredictably irregular and idiosyncratic. Under these circumstances, a focus on breadth, rather than depth, is desirable.
分野によって，トンネルを掘る方向だけでなく，掘り方そのものが大きく異なることを確認し，実感した．皆さんはどちらのタイプでしょうか？
・ Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
昨日の記事「#5665. 言語類型論研究の系譜と現代の潮流」 ([2024-10-30-1]) で類型論 (typology) の学史を振り返った．今回も関連する話題を．
言語学では，古今東西の諸言語の相違点と共通点を探る試みがなされてきた．歴史言語学や方言学は，とりわけ言語の分岐に関心があるので，相違点に注目しがちである．一方，言語普遍性を求める研究は，定義上，共通点を探る．ある意味では，その中間にあって諸言語間の相違点と共通点に目配せし，絶対的，相対的，あるいは確率的な普遍性を探ろうとするのが言語類型論ともいえる．この3者の関係について，Crystal (84) の端的な解説を読んでみよう．
The languages of the world present us with a vast array of structural similarities and differences. Why should this be so? One way of answering this question is to adopt a historical perspective, investigating the origins of language, and pointing to the importance of linguistic change . . . . An alternative approach is to make a detailed description of the similarities or differences, regardless of their historical antecedents, and proceed from there to generalize about the structure and function of human language.
There are two main ways of approaching this latter task. We might look for the structural features that all or most language have in common; or we might focus our attention on the features that differentiate them. In the former case, we are searching for language universals; in the latter case, we are involving ourselves in language typology. In principle, the two approaches are complementary, but sometimes they are associated with different theoretical conceptions of the nature of linguistic enquiry.
結局，言語という山のトンネルを異なる方向から掘り進めているという違いがあるにすぎない．理論上の立ち位置の違いはもちろんあるが，お互いに知見を交流させる努力こそが求められるのだろうと思う．
・ Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow
