Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Journal of Universal Language
Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2003; 4(1):33-74

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2003.4.1.33

Article

Languages and Universals

David Odden1
1Ohio State University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

A central question of linguistic research for nearly a half century has been whether there are properties universal to all human languages. There are many ways of conceptualizing linguistic universals, but at the core, the idea of linguistic universals asserts that some observed properties of human language are arbitrary—the fact that “dog” is pronounced [d g] in English, [kæ] in Korean and [mbwa] in Swahili—but a number of facts of language are not random and arbitrary. If there are non-random properties of linguistic structure, questions arise regarding those properties: what are they; how do we identify them; why do they exist?

Keywords: observational universals; word-order universals; distribution of language

References

1.

Archangeli, D. 1985. Yokuts Harmony: Evidence for Coplanar Representa- tion in Nonlinear Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 335-372.

2.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

3.

Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pttern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

4.

Clements, G. 1985. The Geometry of Phonological Features. Phonology 2, 225-252.

5.

Clements, G. & E. Hume. 1995. The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory 245-306. Oxford: Blackwell.

6.

Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwells.

7.

Dimmendaal, G. 1998. A Syntactic Typology of Surmic from an Areal and Historical-comparative Point of View. In G. Dimmendaal & M. Last (eds.), Surmic Languages and Cultures 35-81. Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Analyses and Documentation vol 13. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

8.

Dryer, M. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language 68, 81- 138.

9.

Greeenberg, J., C. Osgood & L. Jenkins. 1963. Foreword to J. Greenberg. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language 25-51. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Greenberg, J. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Refer- ences to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Uni- versals of Language 73-113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

Payne, T. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

12.

Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.

13.

Sagey, E. 1986. The Representation of Features and Relations in Nonlinear Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.