Diachronic Dimension in Explaining Language Universals

Diachronic considerations to the study of language universals would be to look for universals in language change. This dimension consists of answering the question: how do languages evolve into the variation states to which Implicational universals refer? More recently, researchers have focused on the diachronic aspect of language universals instead of being satisfied with the formulation of the general principles offering a summary of cross-linguistic patterns, without suggesting how they might come into existence. In fact, explaining language universals in this line of research was suggested by Greenberg long back. Greenberg, as cited in Bybee (1989) made this point in outlining a new program for general linguistics, one that could deal with all statements pertaining to all languages, by saying that whether a particular typological pattern was frequent or rare was ‘the resultant of two factors, one of origin and the other of survival’ (p. 89). His statements emphasizes that we must look to the diachronic dimension to learn how the conventions of grammar arise if we are to know why they take the particular form that they do.

Bybee explains this phenomenon in the light of word order universals (correlation in the order of constituents in SOV and VSO languages) to which Hawkins (1979) offers an explanation in the form of his Cross Category Harmony Principles and Venneman (1972) as an innate disposition in speakers to grasp the operator-operand relation. Nevertheless, this mode of explanation is not complete unless we answer the ‘how’ question. What are the causal mechanisms that bring generalizations in language? The kind of Implicational universals of the form ‘if P, then Q’ follows logically but it presents a prediction, not necessarily an explanation. For instance, a survey was conducted by the author of this post to figure out the typological properties of classifiers in South Asian languages and arrived at an implicational generalization that-

If a language has large class of numeral system, then it definitely has numeral classifiers.

While making this kind of generalizations we must explain the relation between P and Q and how the development of one influences the other. Since it was also observed in the data that languages which have few numerals, restricted to one or two (or perhaps three), borrow higher numbers from neighboring languages (also relies on some form of deictic indication for higher number or else borrow from neighboring languages) and thereby borrow the classificatory system too.

Bybee (1989) has identified certain causal factors, to qualify as explanations and as contributors to the creation of the particular grammatical phenomenon. They are explanations based on processing ease, on iconicity, on cognitive or semantic factors or on typical discourse structure. “In order to attain valid explanation for language universals it is necessary to attend the causal mechanisms operational in the establishment of grammatical conventions and find the general dynamic principles behind the causal mechanisms. This view requires that explanation have both diachronic and synchronic dimension. The diachronic dimension plots the paths of development of grammatical conventions across time, and synchronic dimension fills in the small steps along these paths by referring to the way in which language users manipulate the linguistic conventions that they have inherited for their conceptual and communicative purposes” (p. 375).

Few Concluding Remarks:

From the above discussion, we can say that linguists who search for universals in language will generally find what they are looking for. The goal of language universal studies is to define what a possible language is. Both the approaches discussed so far (Generative vs. Typologists) try to answer this question and both believe that there are universal constraints that define the answer to this question. But after reviewing both the approaches and the ongoing debates between the two, one genuine question that arises, is- what conclusions can be drawn from this? Does universality imply innateness? Or, implicational universals limiting the variations offer a description of logically possible languages. Here is a list of some conceivable ways of explaining language universals without innate grammar:

• Many similarities between languages are adequately explained by their having a common origin. It appears quite likely that all human languages have a common origin, if one goes far enough back in time. One would have to assume that several distinct groups of proto-humans independently developed language. Now, this is certainly possible, but the evolution of a single innate universal grammar, common for all mankind, actually requires that all languages have a common origin, in order to be compatible with standard Darwinism.
• In order to be a useful instrument for communication, a language has to meet certain basic criteria. Is it possible that some principles of Universal Grammar can be explained by their being, logically or pragmatically, necessary features of a language?
• Can the rules of Universal Grammar be derived from our general (non-linguistic) cognitive structures, along the lines of the Cognitive models?

While coming to Typological studies, in general, their claim to study a wide range of languages remains valid and constant, as we can see that recent work in Generative grammar has indeed broadened the range of languages considered (although extremely restrictive). Comrie (1984) in his reply to Coopman’s review of his Language Universals and Linguistic Typology has mentioned- “Chomsky (1981) makes clear that generative grammarians have come to realize that an adequate study of syntax within universal grammar requires the study of languages of different types (in the current terminology: with different parameter value)” (p. 155). However, keeping apart the theoretical and methodological distinctions between the two approaches, and emphasizing more on Typological studies, we find a number of problems with investigating all languages:

• Many languages have become extinct.
• Given language change, many new languages will arise. (however, the diachronic dimension in explanation for language universal have thrown much light on this area)
• There is further problem of choosing a representative sample language which should be free from some biases:

- Languages chosen must be from a range of genetic language family.

- In establishing a sample language, one should ensure that each group of language should be given equal    representation.

- Areal distribution of language spoken in a same geographical are tend to influence one another through borrowing or shared innovation, which are not necessarily language universals.

Based on the available evidence, it seems very hard to draw any firm conclusions in this field. Several theories exist which are compatible with what is known about language acquisition and universals, none of which is clearly preferable. It appears likely that no single theory contains the whole truth, but that many theories have some grains can be of it. However, one new line of inquiry can be conjectured based on the recent arguments by Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch (2002) that the uniquely human and uniquely linguistic aspect of human language is syntactic recursion. Recursive property is the only crucial aspect of the computational mechanism of human language that accounts for the rich, expressive and open-ended power of human language. Of course, this view should not be taken as the only possible explanation for universals rather as a new entrant to this program of research, always subjected to testability and falsifiability.