Typology, Universal and Generative Grammar

 

Typology is the classification of languages according to their structural types. In this definition, a language is taken to belong to a single type, and a typology of languages is a definition of the types and classification of languages into those types. We will refer to this definition of typology as typological classification.

A second linguistic definition of typology is the study of patterns that occur systematically across languages. We'll refer to this definition of typology as typological generalization. The patterns found in typological generalization are language universals.

The third and final definition of typology is that typology represents an approach or theoretical framework to the study of language that contrasts with prior approaches, such as American structuralism and generative grammar. In this definition, typology is an approach to linguistic theorizing. Sometimes this approach to linguistic theory is called Greenbergian (named after the great typologist, Joseph Greenberg), as opposed to the Chomskyan approach to linguistic theory {formalism). Functionalism has the view that linguistic structure should be explained in terms of linguistic function. Typology in this sense is often called the functional-typological approach.

The Chomskyan approach (formalism) to linguistic theory is quite different to the Greenbergian approach. One of the main differences between these two approaches is their understanding of language universals. Language universals reflect the belief that there exist linguistic properties beyond the essential definitial properties of language that hold for all languages. Greenberg's approach to language universals emerged at about the same time as Chomsky's, in the late 1950s. The conception of language universals in typology and generative grammar is quite different. To a considerable degree, the difference between the generative and typological approaches to language universals can be traced to the different traditions to which Chomsky and Greenberg responded.

Two major methodological approaches to language universals can be contrasted on a number of parameters. The most important of these being the following:

1) the data base for research on language universals (a wide range of languages, or just a single language); the central role of cross-linguistic comparison;

2) the degree of abstractness of analyses that is required in order to state language universals (for instance, in terms of surface syntactic structure or in terms of deep syntactic structure);

3) the kinds of explanations advanced for the existence of language universals;

4) the close relationship between linguistic form and language function.

On the one hand, some linguists have argued that in order to carry out research on language universals, it is necessary to have data from a wide range of languages; concentrate on universals in terms of relatively concrete rather than very abstract analyses, and to be open in the kinds of explanations that may be advances for the existence of language universals. On the other hand, some linguists have argued that the best way to learn about language universals is by a detailed study of the individual language; such linguists state language universals in terms of abstract structures (such as deep syntactic structures within generative syntax), and have tended to favour innateness as the explanation for language universals. The first of these two approaches is perhaps most closely associated with the work of Joseph H.Greenberg and of those inspired by his work. The second is most closely associated with the work of Noam Chomsky and those directly influenced by him, and also reflects the orientation of the present text-book.

To a considerable degree, the difference between the generative and typological approaches to language universals can be traced to the different traditions to which Chomsky and Greemberg responded. The generative approach represents a reaction against behavioristic psychology, while the typological approach represents a reaction against anthropological relativism.

In the behaviorist view, linguistic competence is acquired through learning stimulas-respond patterns. In contrast, the generative approach posits the existence of innate internal linguistic abilities and constraints that play a major role in the acquisition of language. It is these constraints that represent linguistic universals in this approach. ^c The argument used by Chomsky (Chomsky 1976) for the existence of innate universal linguistic competence refers to the "poverty of the stimulus".

The anthropological relativist view of language is that the languages of the world cai vary arbitrarily: "languages could differ from each other without limit and in unpredictable ways" (Joos 1957:96). Greenberg and others discovered that a more systematic sampling of a substantial number of languages reveals not only the range of variation but constraints on that variation. Those constraints demonstrate that languages do not vary infinitely, and the constraints represent linguistic universals.

The innate universals posited by generative grammar are intended to explain linguistic structure. The poverty of the stimulas argument is essentially a deductive argument.The poverty of the stimulas argument is one aspect of Chomsky's more general rationalist approach to language. The universals posited by typology are intended to represent inductive generalizations across languages, in keeping with typology’s empiricist approach to language. Typological universals call for explanation in terms of more general cognitive, social-interactional, processing, perceptual or other abilities.

These kinds of explanations advanced for the existence of language universals (the Greenbergian approach and Chomsky approach) are diametrically opposed to each other. However, there are significant similarities between the generative and functional-typological approaches:

1) both approaches begin with the analysis of language structure;

2) both approaches consider the central question of linguistics to be "What is a possible human language?";

3) both approaches are universalist, in contrast to their predecessors. There is broad agreement that there do exist a substantial number of universals that hold for all languages;

4) for both approaches, the construction of linguistic generalizations involves abstraction over the data, though the Greenbergian abstract patterns across languages and the Chomskyan abstract patterns within languages;

5) explanations for linguistic universals rest on universal abilities, which may or may not be linguistic specific, and which probably have a significant innate component, though perhaps are not entirely innate. In fact, for both generative and typological approaches, the foundations of linguistic explanation are ultimately biological, although for the Chomskyan, the biological basis is found in genetics (innate linguistic knowledge) and for the Greenbergian, the biological basis is indirect, but is to be found in evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, there are two distinctive characteristics of the Greenbergian approach: the central role of cross-linguistic comparison, and the close relationship between linguistic form and language function.