Grammar

 Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical FindingsVolume 1 edited by Cliff Goddard, Anna Wierzbicka, Kristi J. O'Neill (Studies in Language Companion Series, 60: John Benjamins) Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings Volume 2 edited by Cliff Goddard, Anna Wierzbicka, Kristi J. O'Neill (Studies in Language Companion Series, 61: John Benjamins) This two-volume set of studies takes as its starting point an old idea: the idea that universal grammar is based on meaning. It seeks to give this idea a solid theoretical foundation, and to explore its viability through detailed empirical studies in a set of typologically divergent languages (Lao, Malay, Mandarin Chinese, Mangaaba‑ Mbula, Polish and Spanish).

As the twentieth century recedes, linguists seem increasingly to agree that the "anti‑semantic turn" inaugurated by Leonard Bloomfield and continued by Noam Chomsky was a wrong turn. It is now widely believed that the grammatical properties of a word follow, at least in large measure, from its meaning. But it is true to say that in generative linguistics, semantics is still in a theoretically and methodologically underdeveloped state. It would not be going too far to compare much modern semantic work to phonology before the advent of phonemic analysis. There is little agreement on fundamental methodological problems such as how to distinguish semantic invariants from contextual effects, how to distinguish polysemy from semantic generality, and, above all, on the nature of semantic representation itself. All too often, individual researchers cobble together frameworks to suit their immediate needs, with little regard to how these frameworks can be integrated into a comprehensive system.

Viewed against this background, the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) framework stands out sharply (cf. Wierzbicka 1972, 1980, 1992, 1996; Goddard 1998; Goddard and Wierzbicka Eds 1994; and many other studies listed in this volume, chapter 1). It has been developed and refined over some thirty years. It provides a comprehensive system equally applicable to lexical, grammatical, and illocutionary meaning. It provides a clear and practical methodology for semantic analysis, which has proved itself in literally hundreds of studies in descriptive semantics.

The NSM framework is based on evidence supporting the idea that there is a set of simple, indefinable meanings ‑universal semantic primes ‑ which have concrete linguistic exponents in all the world's languages. By using universal semantic primes as a vocabulary for semantic description we can achieve semantic analyses which are maximally intelligible, testable, and intertranslatable, as well as enabling the maximum possible resolution of semantic analysis.

How does all this connect with universal grammar? The basic idea is a simple one ‑ that universal semantic primes have an inherent grammar which is the same in all languages. Recent work in the NSM framework (see chapter 1) has yielded a very substantial set of hypotheses about this postulated universal grammar. For example, the prime SAY is postulated to allow, universally, valency options of "addressee" and "locutionary topic", so that one can express, in any language, meanings equivalent to `X said something to Y', and `X said something about Z' (notwithstanding that the formal marking of these valency options will vary from language to language). For an example of a different kind, we can take the prime IF. This is postulated to occur universally in a biclausal frame, so that one could express in any language the semantic equivalent of a sentence like `if you do this now, something bad will happen' (notwithstanding that in some languages the exponent of IF coincides with the exponent of WHEN). For a third example, the prime Two is postulated universally to allow a "selective" frame, so that one could express in any language the semantic equivalent of a phrase like `two of these people' (notwithstanding that in some languages the word for Two is verbal in character).

These are highly concrete and testable claims about universal grammar, and it is the goal of this two‑volume collection of studies to test them, and many other equally concrete claims, against data from a set of divergent languages. The first two chapters (this volume) are of a general nature. Chapter One describes the theoretical framework of the natural semantic metalanguage approach, and summarises recent research. Chapter Two lays out in detail a large number of meaning‑based hypotheses about universal grammar. Then follow six studies of individual languages: Malay, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese (this volume) and Mangaaba‑Mbula, Polish and Lao (volume 1I). In each case the author identifies the inventory of semantic primes in that language and then works through the full set of NSM hypotheses about universal grammar. The final chapters (volume II, chapters 4 and 5) explore how the metalanguage of semantic primes can be used as a semantic foundation for grammatical typology, and identify directions for future research.

In a sense, the grammar of semantic primes in any language represents a "core grammar" of that language. The key concern of this set of studies is: Are the essential properties of these core grammars universal, and therefore present in an isomorphic form in all human languages? It is, of course, true that the realisation of the core grammar differs from language to language ‑ in word order, in morphological marking, and in constituent structure. Each of the individual language studies can also be read as a typological profile of that language, based on a principled, semantically‑based sample of questions about argument structure and valency options, complementation,, quantification, specifications of time and location, negation, and so on.

Each core grammar has, then, both a universal aspect and a language‑specific aspect. The approach taken in this set of studies allows us to separate these aspects and to study them both independently and in relation to one another. As ever, the quest for language universals and the study of language diversity and typology go hand in hand.

In short, the goal of this set of studies is to establish empirically that there is a universal core of grammar which is based on ‑ indeed, inseparable from meaning, and in this way to lay the foundations for an integrated, semantically-based approach to universal grammar and linguistic typology.

This set of studies is founded on the idea that universal grammar is based on indeed, inseparable from ‑ meaning. The theoretical framework is the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) approach originated by Anna Wierzbicka over thirty years ago and developed since then in collaboration with Cliff Goddard and other colleagues (for references, see vol.1, chapter 1). The NSM framework is based on evidence supporting the idea that there is a set of simple, indefinable meanings, ‑ universal semantic primes ‑ which have concrete linguistic exponents in all the world's languages.

The NSM system is perhaps best known as the methodology for a large body of descriptive studies in cross‑linguistic semantics and pragmatics, but it also has fundamental implications for the theory of universal grammar. The key idea is that universal semantic primes have an inherent grammar (including combinatorics, valency and complementation options) that is the same in all languages.

Chapters One and Two of Volume I provide theoretical background and propose a substantial set of concrete hypotheses about universal grammar. Subsequent chapters of that volume test the viability of these hypotheses through studies of Malay, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese.

This volume continues with three further languages: Mangaaba‑Mbula, Polish, and Lao. In each case the author identifies the inventory of semantic primes in that language and then works through the full set of NSM hypotheses about universal grammar. The final chapters explore how the metalanguage of semantic primes can be used as a semantic foundation for grammatical typology, and identify directions for future research.

 

Old Church Slavonic Grammar 7^th  edition by Horace G. Lunt (Mouton de Gruyter) This description of the structure of Old Church Slavonic (OCS) is intended to present fully the important data about the language, without citing all the minutiae of attested variant spellings. The facts have been treated from the point of view of structural linguistics, but pedagogical clarity has taken precedence over the conciseness required for elegant formal description.

OCS was used over a period of some two hundred years and in various geographical parts of the Slavic world precisely at the time when the Slavic languages were undergoing rapid, fundamental, divergent changes. Some of these changes are doubtless reflected in the variant spellings in the few texts which have survived from this period, so that while most variations in grammar and vocabulary are the sorts of stylistic and idiosyncratic differences that are found in the standard or literary language of any single epoch, some important variant details result from different regional dialectal history. It has thus been necessary to include occasional references to historical and comparative linguistics in the first half of this book, although in principle these problems do not fall within the scope of a strictly descriptive, synchronic grammar.

It is necessary to normalize forms to present the grammatical structure as a consistent whole, and the normalization inevitably obscures the differences in the language of the various manuscripts. A clear picture of the different combinations of linguistic elements making up each of the texts is not to be achieved by lists of spelling variants or tables of percentages, but it is worthwhile to point out some of the striking variations. First‑hand acquaintance with the texts and constant comparison of variant readings is the only way to arrive at an understanding both of the underlying unity of the texts as a whole and of the major and minor differences between them.

Little mention is made here of another type of comparison‑the relationship of the OCS translated texts to the Greek originals. And yet it is in the Greek and in the translation technique that the explanations of hundreds of tiny problems (especially of syntax) are to be found, and certain major structural problems need to be posed in terms of the influence of Greek on OCS. However, so few students have enough Greek to profit by such comparisons that it did not seem worth the considerable space that would be required. Excellent work in this field is available, though some scholars tend to forget that even a poor translator is governed by the structure of the language into which he is translating. The "Notes on Syntax" in Chapter Six are offered on the premise that something is better than nothing. It is particularly in this area that translation techniques need to be analyzed.

After forty years of teaching OCS and related topics in the history and structure of modern Slavic languages, my views on the nature of language and the models for describing language have evolved away from the Bloomfieldian structuralism of my training. The data of OCS have not changed importantly from the material described by scholars a century ago, although some details from imprecise editions have been discarded and a few new details must be accounted for. I continue to believe that every language is a coherent structure, and that each language can be described in terms of static and dynamic elements and learned by novices who do not have the slightest knowledge of its history. Chapter Six is an entirely new addition to the original text. It contains a sketch of the development from Late Indo-­European to Late Common Slavic and will be of interest not only to Slavists but to linguists in general.

Headline 3

insert content here

WT Main | About WT | Review Links | Contact | Review Sources | Search