Parts-of-speech systems and dependent clauses: A typological study

Abstract This paper investigates the degree of parallelism between the distribution of parts-of-speech classes in a language, and the distribution of dependent clause types in that language. It is hypothesized that languages with parts-of-speech classes that are specialized for a certain syntactic function have dependent clause types that are also confined to a single function. Conversely, in languages with a class of lexical items that is not specialized for a single function, but can rather be used in two or more functions, the same functional flexibility is expected in the domain of dependent clauses. These predictions are tested on a pilot sample of 12 languages, each with a different parts-of-speech system. For languages with functionally specialized parts-of-speech classes the results are as expected: their dependent clauses are also specialized. The languages with flexible parts-of-speech systems partly support the hypothesis: as expected, they have dependent clause types that can be used in more than one function. However, the distribution of these flexible constructions is not exactly the same as the distribution of the flexible parts-of-speech classes. Furthermore, in addition to flexible dependent clause types, languages with flexible parts-of-speech systems have functionally specialized dependent clause types. The results are interpreted as indicative of the interdependency between lexical and morphosyntactic typology.

[1]  Mechthild Reh,et al.  Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìinò-mó-dì) : Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis , 1985 .

[2]  Ulrike Mosel,et al.  Samoan Reference Grammar , 1992 .

[3]  Kees Hengeveld.  4. Parts of speech , 1992 .

[4]  W. Bruce Croft.  Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories , 2000 .

[5]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes , 2000 .

[6]  Marianne Mithun.  Noun and verb in Iroquioan languages: multicat-egorisation from multiple criteria , 2000 .

[7]  Marianne Mithun.  A grammar of Tuscarora , 1976 .

[8]  David Beck,et al.  The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems: The Markedness of Adjectives , 2002 .

[9]  Experiential constructions in Mundari , 1999 .

[10]  Bettina Harriehausen,et al.  Hmong Njua, syntaktische Analyse einer gesprochenen Sprache mit Hilfe datenverarbeitungstechnischer Mittel und sprachvergleichende Beschreibung des südostasiatischen Sprachraumes , 1989 .

[11]  Kees Hengeveld,et al.  Mundari as a flexible language , 2005 .

[12]  Clemens Knobloch,et al.  Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung: Perspektiven in System und Erwerb , 2005 .

[13]  A Reference Grammar of Mundari , 1994 .

[14]  Michael Noonan,et al.  A grammar of Lango , 1992 .

[15]  Jan Don,et al.  Categories in the Lexicon , 2004 .

[16]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[17]  Hans-Jurgen Sasse,et al.  Der irokesische Sprachtyp , 1988 .

[18]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Word Classes and Parts of Speech , 2001 .

[19]  Kees Hengeveld,et al.  Parts-of-speech systems and word order , 2004 .

[20]  JÜRGEN BROSCHART,et al.  Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs , 1997 .

[21]  Nicholas Evans,et al.  Mundari and argumentation in word-class analysis , 2005 .

[22]  A. Göksel,et al.  Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar , 2004 .

[23]  B. Hewitt,et al.  The Typology of Subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz , 1987 .

[24]  Ingo Plag,et al.  Word-Formation in English , 2018 .

[25]  N. Evans,et al.  Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes , 2005 .