Umberto Ansaldo

Surpass comparatives in Sinitic and beyond: typology and grammaticalization

Abstract The Surpass (or Exceed) comparative is a widespread feature of Sinitic languages found in almost all ‘dialect’ groups. This article investigates the nature of Surpass constructions in Southern Chinese varieties with a focus on Cantonese, and in unrelated languages of Southeast Asia, where Surpass comparatives are also found (Thai, Lao and Vietnamese). I offer possible grammaticalization paths for the Surpass comparative in the history of Chinese grammar, and argue that Surpass constructions are typical of Southern Sinitic but not of Mandarin Chinese (contra Stassen, Comparison and universal grammar, Basil Blackwell, 1985, Stassen, Comparative constructions, Oxford University Press, 2005). I also propose that the Surpass comparative should be added to the shared features of a broadly defined Mainland Southeast Asian region which illustrates the affinity of languages such as Cantonese to their non-Sinitic Southeast Asian neighbors. Finally, in arguing that comparatives in Mandarin Chinese are not Surpass construction, I suggest that it is not Sinitic languages in general that go against robust typological correlations between basic word order and standard-adjective order; rather, it is only Mandarin that provides a counterexample and is, in that respect, typologically rare.

Neural basis for processing hidden complexity indexed by small and finite clauses in Mandarin Chinese

Abstract In this study we investigate how the human brain processes small clauses and finite clauses. Small clauses are instances of ‘simpler’ syntax in the sense that they do not involve operations such as Move and Tense, and have been argued to represent an earlier stage of syntactic evolution before the development of fully-fledged syntax (Bickerton, 1990; Jackendoff 2010; Uriagereka, 2008). Understanding how the brain processes instances of different levels of syntactic complexity may further our understanding of (i) the analytical functions of specific brain regions, and (ii) the distribution of labor in the interpretation or different levels of syntax. To pursue this hypothesis, we ask whether small clauses require different analytical processes than regular syntax. This report provides evidence that they do. In an fMRI study of syntactic processing in a group of Mandarin speakers, small clauses showed greater activation of areas involved in semantic processing. In addition, both small and finite clauses showed substantial activation of areas implicated in syntactic and semantic processing, including significant RH activation. We interpret these findings with reference to Levinsons articulatory bottleneck: structures which appear simpler in terms of syntactic production may require more effort in parsing.

slm is Dead, Long Live Sri Lanka Malay

This paper discusses the results of scholarship on Sri Lanka Malay based on the studies presented in Nordhoff 2013 in terms of theory, method, and social impact. It touches on a variety of topics including the significance of recent genetic evidence for old theories of language genesis, as well as the efforts for revitalization sparked by the scientific interest in the speech community. In evaluating this collection of variable significance, the author reflects on the transition of ownership of Sri Lanka Malay: from object of scientific curiosity to ancestral language of communal value.

Contact language formation in evolutionary terms

The aim of this paper is to present a view of contact language formation in which language creation in multilingual ecologies follows the same principles as language maintenance in monolingual ecologies, i.e. selection and replication of features available to speakers in a given environment. In order to do so, I introduce the foundations underlying an evolutionary framework to contact language formation and the views they offer for our understanding of language contact and change. The view of grammar as an evolving system, I believe, can be best appreciated in a functional-typological theory of language. For this reason, I first introduce the basic functionalist, usage-based linguistic theories required for an evolutionary framework. I then synthesize a view on language contact and change in evolutionary terms based on Croft (2000, 2006a) and Mufwene (2001). Finally, I apply the views presented here to a case of contact language formation, namely the evolution of case markers in a variety of Sri Lanka Malay. These are particularly interesting as, from a classic or orthodox view, they might be seen as ‘complex’, ‘marked’ or at least ‘unexpected’ instances of contact-induced change. The evolutionary framework however can explain these as natural acts of linguistic replication in multilingual settings, thus avoiding exceptionalist explanations. Instead, an evolutionary framework offers an integration of socio-historical and functional-typological observation, something that our current approaches to language change still largely lack (Croft 2006b). Among the advantages of the framework applied here, as discussed in the concluding section, is the suggestion that overall structural complexity, however defined, does not change as a result of contact language formation: a new grammar is simply the result of a recombination of grammatical features of the input languages.

Typological variation across Mandarin dialects: An areal perspective with a quantitative approach

Abstract This study explores the range and diversity of the typological features of Mandarin, the largest dialect group within the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan family. Feeding the typological data of 42 Sinitic varieties into the phylogenetic program NeighborNet, we obtained network diagrams suggesting a north-south divide in the Mandarin dialect group, where dialects within the Amdo Sprachbund cluster at one end and those in the Far Southern area cluster at the other end, highlighting the impact of language contact on the typological profiles of various Mandarin dialects.

Editorial: Is the Language Faculty Nonlinguistic?

A line of research in cognitive science over several decades has been dedicated to mapping a hypothetically innate, language-specific cognitive system, a faculty that allows human infants to acquire languages natively without formal instruction and within short periods of time. In recent years, this search has attracted significant controversy in cognitive science generally, and in the language sciences specifically. Some maintain that the search has had meaningful results, though there are different views as to what the findings are: ranging from the view that there is a rich and rather specific set of principles, to the idea that the contents of the language faculty are—while specifiable—in fact extremely minimal. Other researchers rigorously oppose the continuation of this search, arguing that decades of effort have turned up nothing. The fact remains that the proposal of a language-specific faculty was made for a good reason, namely as an attempt to solve the vexing puzzle of language in our species. Much work has been developing to address this, and specifically, to look for ways to characterize the language faculty as an emergent phenomenon; i.e., not as a dedicated, language-specific system, but as the emergent outcome of a set of uniquely human but not specifically linguistic factors, in combination. A number of theoretical and empirical approaches are being developed in order to account for the great puzzles of language—language processing, language usage, language acquisition, the nature of grammar, and language change and diversification. The goal of this Research Topic is to ask whether a paradigm shift has indeed occurred that allows us to conceptualize language not as an innate, dedicated faculty, but as the result of general cognitive abilities adapted for linguistic use. n nIn the first of three review articles, Dąbrowska reviews the fundamental arguments in support of the Universal Grammar hypothesis. The focus is on the three most powerful arguments, namely universality, convergence, and poverty of stimulus. The author maintains that all three can be proven wrong: languages have been shown to display deep differences of structure; significant variation has been documented in speakers knowledge of grammar; and grammatical constructions have been proven to be learnable through input. The second review by Christiansen and Chater takes issue with the latest, most minimal proposal for a language faculty (LF): recursion. Through a review and discussion of genetic, non-human primate and neuro-scientific research the authors argue that an innate LF is evolutionarily unlikely. The ability to process recursive structure emerges gradually through adaptation of domain-general sequence learning abilities. The relationship between domain-specificity and linguistic adaptation is the focus of the third review, by Culbertson and Kirby. The authors propose that our linguistic knowledge is best seen as a unique interaction of domain-general capacities with language. This can be illustrated by what they see as a powerful general bias towards simplicity of representation, which manifests itself cross-linguistically through universal tendencies such as compositionality, regularity, harmony, and isomorphism. n nIn their more theoretical article, Mattos and Hinzen shift the focus of the debate to the acquisition of declarative gestures in pre-verbal children. Even before the onset of one-word expressions, children show the ability to link lexical concepts to gestures. This, the authors argue, can only be explained by a system that is both symbolic and referential, and must be taken as a challenge to the alleged non-linguistic roots of natural pedagogy. In the second article of more theoretical nature, Adger and Svenonius defend the view that “aspects of our best theories of syntactic phenomena are simply special cases of more general principles. But those more general principles are not established at the moment […] generative syntax provides a potential way to reach those more general principles.” A methodological point made here is that in evaluating domain specificity we need to ensure that we evaluate principles of actual explanatory power. A theoretical point maintains that principles might exist that are language-specialized, i.e., linguistic versions of more general cognitive principles. The third of these more theoretically oriented contributions, by Goldberg, concerns exactly what kind of evidence should be used in support of UG. Goldberg looks at the “subtle and intricate” implicit knowledge of language that speakers seem to possess. Even these cases, the author argues, do not warrant the positing of unlearned syntactic structures, as they can be explained by the functions of the constructions involved. Crucially these are learned, conventionalized, and only require domain-general constraints on perception, attention and memory. n nTwo original research papers offer strong views against innateness. Archangeli and Pulleyblank present a take on phonology based on the Emergent Grammar Hypothesis. In this view humans are understood to make sense of linguistic data primarily through three non-linguistic abilities: categorial thinking, sensitivity to frequency, and symbolic generalization. In three case studies ranging from English to Bantu and Esimbi, the authors show how diverse language data can be explained by such operational abilities. They propose an emergent basis for not only phonology but possibly morphological structures too. In a second original research paper, Evans approaches human language as a communicative system that must have two fundamental design features: a conceptual and a linguistic system, each of which contributes to meaning construction. Evans argues that both systems operate in a symbiotic relation and are semantic in nature, but the former is evolutionarily older and is the one to which the latter is adapted. n nFinally, in a perspective piece, Everett takes issue in particular with the notion of a “phonological mind,” or phonological nativism. The proposal, according to the author, suffers from at least two shortcomings. A theoretical problem is that properties invoked in phonological nativism are not successfully explained in evolutionary terms. A methodological problem confuses design features of any given system with innate, rather than acquired, constraints. n nWe are pleased to present a set of articles that approach our research question—Is the language faculty nonlinguistic?—from a range of angles, and with consideration of multiple stances on the question. Perhaps most importantly, this applies to the very idea of what a language faculty is. The concept can be understood in two distinct ways: n n nThat which humans have which is biologically necessary to learn language. n n nThat which humans have which is biologically necessary to learn language and which is not a general purpose learning mechanism. n n n nWe might call (1) an axiom. Nobody hypothesizes that humans have a capacity for language. Rather, that capacity is the thing to be explained and understood. By contrast, (2) is a hypothesis, i.e., that the relevant mechanisms are not general but are specifically dedicated to language. These two concepts of a language faculty must not be confused. Progress with this central problem in the psychology of language will not only require a constructive approach to dialogue between those of differing views, it will require conceptual clarity at every step.

Serial verb constructions

This article examines the notion of serialization and its structural manifestations from a crosslinguistic point of view. Starting with the actual distribution of serial verb constructions (SVCs) in languages of different morphological type, we move to a discussion of the most defining traits of SVCs across languages. A number of semantic and syntactic parameters typically used to distinguish different types and functions of serialization in language are presented. We then turn to diachronic aspects of SVCs, identifying a number of highly frequent grammaticalization paths and their semantic sources, illustrated using examples from creole and Sinitic languages. The article concludes on a note of general theoretical relevance, regarding the status of SVCs.

Sri Lanka: Language Situation

Sri Lankans are predominantly speakers of Sinhalese with a Tamil-speaking minority. English is visible in the government, media, and education. Diglossia, multilingualism and areal convergence are predominant traits of the language situation in Sri Lanka.

Singapore: Language situation

Singapores population is characterized by a high degree of multilingualism, with four official languages and numerous vernacular varieties. As such, it is a true laboratory for sociolinguistic enterprises. It is rich in language planning and policy making, shows complex patterns of polyglossia, and code mixing is very common.