1: Introduction to Language Typology

1. Definition of Language Typology

The chapter begins by explaining that language typology is the study of the structural
features of languages with the goal of classifying them based on their similarities and
differences. It’s concerned with patterns across languages, and how languages can be
categorized based on these patterns, regardless of their historical or genetic relationships.

2. Goals of Language Typology

• Descriptive: To describe and compare the features of different languages.

• Classificatory: To create a system for classifying languages based on shared features.
• Explanatory: To understand why certain linguistic features are more common or rare
across the world’s languages.

Language typology answers questions like: Why do languages have the structures they
do? and What is possible or impossible in human languages?

3. Types of Typology

The chapter describes three main subfields of typology:

• Morphological Typology: This focuses on the ways in which languages

use morphemes (the smallest units of meaning) to build words.
• Syntactic Typology: This deals with word order and how languages structure
sentences.
• Phonological Typology: This studies the sound systems of languages, including
vowels, consonants, and suprasegmental features like tone.

4. Typological Classification

Languages are classified based on features like:

• Morphological classification (e.g., isolating, agglutinative, fusional, and

polysynthetic languages).
• Syntactic classification (e.g., SVO, SOV, and VSO languages).

Each type of classification reveals significant cross-linguistic variation, but also patterns that
many languages share.

5. Linguistic Universals

A key focus of this chapter is on linguistic universals—features that appear in all languages
or that are statistically common across many languages. These universals can
be absolute (true for all languages) or implicational (if a language has one feature, it is likely
to have another). The chapter emphasizes that Joseph Greenberg’s Universals (discovered
through his 1960s research) are crucial for understanding how typologists compare languages.

6. Methods of Language Typology

 • Cross-linguistic comparison: Typologists compare features of unrelated languages to
find patterns.
• Sampling: This involves selecting languages from different families and regions to
create a balanced sample of the world's languages.

7. Importance of Typology in Linguistics

Typology provides a way to understand the potential and limitations of human languages,
offering insights into linguistic diversity. It also helps linguists understand the nature of
human cognition, as certain language structures reflect universal cognitive tendencies.

8. Typology vs. Historical Linguistics

The chapter also highlights the distinction between language typology and historical
linguistics. Typology focuses on structural features and patterns found across languages
without concern for their historical relationships, while historical linguistics is concerned with
how languages evolve over time and are genealogically related.

Important Insights from Chapter 1

• Language typology is not about tracing the historical development of languages but
about understanding the diversity and commonalities in language structure.
• Typologists aim to classify languages into types based on their structure, using
features like word order, morphological complexity, and phonological systems.
• Joseph Greenberg and his linguistic universals play a critical role in the study of
language typology, revealing patterns that typologists use to predict language
structures.
• The chapter emphasizes universality vs. variability in languages—how certain
features are universal while others vary widely across different languages.

Tasks and Exercises

1.

1. Linguistic Typology (http://www.linguistic-typology.org/)

• Purpose: This site serves as a resource for researchers and students in the field of
linguistic typology. It aims to promote research in language typology and the general
study of languages.
• Content: The website offers information on various typological studies, provides links
to resources, and highlights ongoing typological research. It also includes articles,
conference information, and a database of typological features.
• Authors: This site is maintained by the Linguistic Typology journal, which is
published by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and other
contributors in the field of linguistic typology.

2. WALS (World Atlas of Language Structures) (http://www.wals.info)

 • Purpose: WALS is a comprehensive resource that provides a detailed typological
classification of the world's languages based on structural features.
• Content: The database includes maps, charts, and descriptions of linguistic features
across languages, such as word order, morphological types, and phonological systems.
It also offers comparative data on over 2,500 languages.
• Authors: WALS was created and is maintained by a team of linguists
including Bernard Comrie, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, and David Gil,
who are prominent figures in the field of linguistic typology.

3. University of Surrey (http://www.surrey.ac.uk)

• Purpose: The University of Surrey’s site features research and academic resources in
various fields, including linguistics. This link likely leads to a specific linguistics
project or resource at the university.
• Content: The specific content can vary, but generally, it includes academic research,
articles, and resources related to linguistic studies and typology.
• Authors: The content is produced by faculty and researchers at the University of
Surrey, particularly in the linguistics department.

4. Typology Archive (http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/intro)

• Purpose: The Typology Archive provides access to a range of data and research on
linguistic typology, aiming to facilitate the exchange of typological data.
• Content: The archive includes datasets, papers, and resources that can be used by
researchers in the field. It also features a variety of typological features and language
comparisons.
• Authors: The archive is maintained by the University of Konstanz, particularly by
researchers involved in the field of typology and linguistics, but specific authors may
vary by document.

5. Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com)

• Purpose: Ethnologue is a comprehensive reference work cataloging all of the world's

known living languages. It aims to provide detailed information on each language.
• Content: It includes statistics on language speakers, geographic distribution, language
family classifications, and vital statistics regarding languages around the world.
• Authors: Ethnologue is published by SIL International, a non-profit organization that
studies and documents languages, particularly minority and indigenous languages.

6. Reduplication Database (http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/db.html)

• Purpose: This database focuses specifically on the linguistic phenomenon of

reduplication, where a word or part of a word is repeated to convey a grammatical or
semantic meaning.
• Content: The database provides examples of reduplication from various languages,
along with descriptions and analyses of the forms and functions of reduplication in
different linguistic contexts.
• Authors: The database is a collaborative project from researchers at the University of
Graz, with contributions from linguists who specialize in morphology and typology
2.

1. Consonant Inventories

a) Field of Linguistics: Phonetics and Phonology.

b) Basic Research Question: What is the range of consonant inventories across languages,
and how does the number of consonants in a language's inventory vary?

c) Methodology:

• The chapter examines the size of consonant inventories across different languages,
analyzing data from a range of linguistic descriptions.
• Tertium Comparationis: The number of consonants in the inventories of the
languages studied.
• The typologist works with the analyzed features in accordance with Haspelmath’s
comparative concepts by providing a comparative analysis that does not assume
identical categories across languages.

d) Languages Compared: The chapter compares data from approximately 600 languages.

e) Important Results: There are significant variations in consonant inventory sizes, with
languages exhibiting very small inventories (like Hawaiian) to those with extensive
consonantal systems (like Ubykh)

2. Number of Genders

a) Field of Linguistics: Morphology and Syntax.

b) Basic Research Question: How many gender categories are recognized across different
languages?

c) Methodology:

• The analysis categorizes languages based on the number of grammatical genders they
utilize, from none to five or more.
• Tertium Comparationis: The count of gender categories present in each language.
• The typologist adheres to Haspelmath’s concepts by analyzing gender systems without
assuming that they function identically across languages.

d) Languages Compared: The analysis covers around 1,000 languages.

e) Important Results: The majority of languages have either no gender or two genders, with
a decreasing frequency for languages with three or more genders. This reflects common
patterns in gender systems across linguistic families

3. Order of Degree Word and Adjective

a) Field of Linguistics: Syntax and Semantics.

b) Basic Research Question: What is the syntactic order of degree words relative to
adjectives in various languages?

c) Methodology:

• The chapter investigates the syntactic positions of degree words in relation to

adjectives across languages, distinguishing between those that precede and those that
follow adjectives.
• Tertium Comparationis: The syntactic position of degree words concerning
adjectives.
• The typologist's work aligns with Haspelmath's concepts by comparing the
grammatical features across diverse languages without assuming uniformity.

d) Languages Compared: Approximately 500 languages are analyzed.

e) Important Results: A dominant trend is identified where degree words generally precede
adjectives in many languages, with exceptions noted in specific regions and languages

4. Tea

a) Field of Linguistics: Lexical Semantics and Cultural Linguistics.

b) Basic Research Question: How is the concept of "tea" represented in various languages,
and what does this reveal about cultural perceptions of tea?

c) Methodology:

• The chapter examines the lexical terms used for tea across different languages and
cultural contexts.
• Tertium Comparationis: The different lexical items that refer to tea in the selected
languages.
• The typologist applies Haspelmath's comparative concepts by analyzing cultural
meanings associated with the lexical terms rather than assuming a direct one-to-one
correspondence.

d) Languages Compared: The chapter looks at terms from multiple language families,
focusing on linguistic data from about 100 languages.

e) Important Results: The findings suggest that the word for tea varies significantly,
reflecting both the linguistic diversity and cultural importance of tea in different societies

d+e= Consonant Inventories

• Number of Languages Compared: Approximately 600 languages are analyzed.

• Important Results: The study reveals significant variation in the size and structure of
consonant inventories across languages. Some languages, like Hawaiian, have very
limited inventories, while others, like Ubykh, possess a rich variety of consonants,
indicating a broad range of phonological diversity across the world

2. Number of Genders
 • Number of Languages Compared: Around 1,000 languages are examined in this
chapter.
• Important Results: The analysis shows that most languages have either no gender or
a binary gender system (masculine and feminine), with a decreasing number of
languages exhibiting more complex gender systems. The prevalence of two-gender
languages suggests a linguistic tendency towards simplicity in gender marking across
diverse linguistic families

3. Order of Degree Word and Adjective

• Number of Languages Compared: This chapter includes data from about 500
languages.
• Important Results: The findings indicate a dominant pattern where degree words
typically precede adjectives in many languages, though exceptions exist, particularly
in specific regions. This order is essential for understanding syntactic structures and
language processing

4. Tea

• Number of Languages Compared: The chapter studies terms related to tea from
roughly 100 languages.
• Important Results: The lexical diversity regarding the term for "tea" highlights
significant cultural distinctions. For instance, the representation of tea varies widely,
reflecting cultural practices and the importance of tea in various societies. The study
emphasizes the interplay between language and cultural significance

3. The excerpt from Haspelmath emphasizes the complexity and variability of linguistic
categories across languages, highlighting the need for typologists to approach language study
with an awareness of uniqueness and diversity. Here’s a detailed explanation of the key points
and their implications for typology:

Understanding Unique Categories Across Languages

1. Linguistic Diversity:
o Each language has its own set of grammatical and semantic categories that
reflect its unique cultural and communicative context. This uniqueness means
that typologists must recognize that there may not always be direct equivalents
for specific features across different languages.
2. Avoiding Overgeneralization:
o The tendency to equate categories across languages can lead to
overgeneralization and misconceptions about language structures. For instance,
while both English and Japanese have passive constructions, they may function
differently within their respective grammatical systems and cultural contexts.
A typologist must avoid assuming that similarities mean that the categories
operate in the same way.
3. Implications for Comparison:
o Recognizing that each language may have entirely new categories encourages
typologists to explore language features in depth. It requires careful analysis
 and comparison rather than superficial categorization based on surface
similarities.
4. Complexity of Features:
o Some linguistic features may not be present or absent in a straightforward
yes/no manner. For example, a language might have a passive construction that
differs significantly in its function or formation from that in another language.
Thus, the presence of a feature can be better understood on a spectrum, where
the degrees of similarity and difference need to be considered.

The Yes/No Question on Features

• Spectrum of Presence:
o The presence or absence of a linguistic feature is often not simply a binary
issue. For instance, a language might exhibit a feature only in certain contexts
or with certain restrictions. Similarly, a feature may be present but function
differently compared to its counterpart in another language.
• Implicational Scales:
o Haspelmath suggests that cross-linguistic similarities are often best expressed
through implicational scalesor semantic maps. These tools allow linguists to
understand how certain features relate to one another across languages. For
example, if a language has a particular type of morphological marking, it may
also have another feature as a consequence, rather than simply being present or
absent.
• Categorical Nuance:
o Since categories may vary widely in their characteristics, the nuances of how
features manifest in different languages suggest that understanding them
requires more than just identifying their presence. It involves understanding
their roles, functions, and relationships within the grammatical system of each
language.

Conclusion

In summary, typologists should embrace the idea that languages may exhibit completely new
and unique categories. This understanding encourages a nuanced and thorough investigation
of language structures, promoting a richer and more accurate representation of linguistic
diversity. The presence or absence of specific linguistic features should be viewed within a
broader spectrum of variation, rather than as a simple yes/no dichotomy. This perspective
enables linguists to appreciate the complexities of language and to avoid reductive
comparisons that may overlook significant differences.

4.
Relationship Descriptions Using Table 7
Based on the relationships you've described, here’s how you can describe the relationships:
 • William and Peter Phillips: William Phillips is the father of Peter Phillips. This can
be expressed as "father-son" or "parent-child" relationship.
• William and Zara Phillips: William Phillips is the uncle of Zara Phillips. This can be
referred to as "uncle-niece" relationship.
• Relationship of Charles Spencer to the Duke of Cambridge: Diana’s brother,
Charles Spencer, is the uncle of the Duke of Cambridge, as Diana is the mother of the
Duke. Thus, Charles Spencer is the uncle.

Using Hungarian Terms for Relationships:

In Hungarian, the terms for cousins are compound words where:

• Unoka = grandchild
• Sibling relationships are specified with terms for "younger" or "older".

Given Queen Elizabeth II and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’s grandchildren (including William
and Zara Phillips):

• William Phillips and Zara Phillips are unokaöccs (male cousin)

and unokahúg (female cousin), respectively.
• They share a grandchild-grandparent relationship with Queen Elizabeth II and
Philip.

5. The discussion around applying Dokulil's onomasiological approach and Haspelmath's

comparative concepts in typological research is an intriguing topic that bridges the
understanding of language structure with semantic and pragmatic considerations. Here’s an
overview of how these frameworks can interact and their potential application in typological
studies.

Haspelmath’s Comparative Concepts

Haspelmath emphasizes that language typology should focus on features and their
comparative analysis rather than assuming that linguistic categories are universally
equivalent. His approach suggests that:

1. Categories Are Not Identical: Each language may possess unique categories that do
not perfectly map onto those of other languages. This is crucial for understanding the
nuances of language comparison .
2. Use of Tertium Comparationis: Haspelmath advocates for a tertium comparationis—
a third entity against which features can be compared. This entity should not impose
preconceived notions but rather allow for the organic discovery of similarities and
differences .

Dokulil’s Onomasiological Approach

Dokulil's onomasiological approach centers on the ways in which concepts are encoded
across languages. Key aspects include:
 1. Focus on Meaning: Instead of starting from specific linguistic forms (as in traditional
semasiology), onomasiology begins with concepts and explores how different
languages express these concepts .
2. Conceptual Categories: Dokulil proposes that understanding the categories of
meaning in one language can provide insight into how those meanings are structured
in another. This contrasts with merely looking at grammatical forms .

Compatibility and Application in Typological Research

Integrating Dokulil’s approach with Haspelmath’s comparative concepts can enrich

typological research in several ways:

1. Broader Scope of Comparison: By emphasizing meaning and conceptual categories,

researchers can explore how languages diverge in their expression of shared concepts.
This is particularly valuable in studying semantic fields, such as kinship terms, where
cultural significance influences language use.
2. Enhanced Understanding of Language Variation: Dokulil’s focus on how different
languages can encode the same concept allows for a deeper understanding of linguistic
diversity. Haspelmath's framework can help ensure that this analysis remains
grounded in rigorous comparative methodology, thus avoiding assumptions of direct
equivalence.
3. Semantic Maps and Implicational Scales: Using the concepts from both frameworks
can lead to the development of semantic maps or implicational scales, which help
visualize how languages categorize and encode meanings across various contexts .

Conclusion

In conclusion, applying Dokulil's onomasiological approach as a methodology in typological

research complements Haspelmath’s comparative concepts well. Together, they can provide a
robust framework for exploring linguistic diversity, revealing both commonalities and unique
features of languages. Such integration fosters a richer understanding of how languages
interact with the concepts they encode, ultimately contributing to the broader field of
linguistic typology.

2. Explanation of Haspelmath’s Perspective

In the excerpt by Haspelmath, the key argument is that while languages may exhibit
similarities in categories, each language can introduce unique categories that do not have
direct counterparts in other languages. This understanding is crucial for typologists because:

1. Unique Categories: Each language can have distinct grammatical or semantic

categories that do not match perfectly with those in other languages. Recognizing this
prevents overgeneralization and misclassification in typological studies.
2. Presence or Absence: The presence or absence of a specific linguistic feature is not
merely a yes/no question; it can be a spectrum or involve nuanced distinctions. For
instance, a language might have a feature that only partially resembles that of another
language, making it more complex than a binary classification.

Key Takeaway:
Typologists must approach linguistic features with an open mind, recognizing that each
language has the potential for unique grammatical and semantic systems that may not align
perfectly with pre-established categories in other languages.

6. Commonalities
1. Focus on Patterns and Structures: All three definitions emphasize the examination
of linguistic systems and their structures. They recognize that typology is concerned
with identifying patterns that recur across languages.
2. Cross-Linguistic Analysis: Each definition indicates the necessity of cross-linguistic
surveys to understand and categorize languages. This suggests that typology is not
limited to individual languages but requires a broader, comparative approach.
3. Understanding Similarities and Differences: All definitions highlight the
investigation of both differences and similarities among languages, which is central to
typological studies.

Differences

1. Scope and Purpose:

o Velupillai focuses on recurring patterns and the distribution of linguistic
structures, suggesting a more descriptive and systematic approach to typology.
o Bickel places typology within a theoretical framework, linking it to generative
grammar and the limits of possible human languages, indicating a goal-
oriented aspect toward understanding universal grammar.
o Croft, on the other hand, discusses the historical context of typology and
critiques the notion of classifying languages into distinct types, emphasizing
the complexity and variability of language features.
2. Approach to Language Types:
o Velupillai treats typology as a way to analyze linguistic systems broadly
without an emphasis on strict classification.
o Bickel suggests that typology aims to contribute to a universal theory of
grammar, indicating an aspirational goal that transcends mere classification.
o Croft challenges the feasibility of categorizing languages into types,
highlighting that while the concept originated from morphological typology,
actual classifications are often problematic.

Croft's View on Language Classification

Croft argues that classifying languages into distinct types is often difficult, if not impossible.
Here are the reasons behind this viewpoint:

1. Language Diversity: Languages exhibit a vast array of features and variations. The
inherent complexity and richness of linguistic phenomena make it challenging to fit
languages neatly into predefined categories.
2. Fluidity of Language: Language is dynamic, and its structures can change over time.
Many languages do not conform to rigid types, as they may exhibit characteristics of
multiple types simultaneously.
 3. Overlapping Features: Languages can share features across different typological
categories, making it difficult to classify them strictly. For instance, a language may
use both isolating and agglutinative features, which complicates its classification.
4. Historical and Sociolinguistic Factors: Languages are influenced by various
historical, cultural, and sociolinguistic factors, leading to unique linguistic evolutions
that resist typological classification.

Conclusion

In summary, while the three definitions of language typology share a foundational focus on
linguistic patterns and structures through cross-linguistic comparisons, they differ in their
scope, purpose, and approach to classification. Croft’s perspective highlights the complexities
inherent in linguistic diversity, emphasizing the challenges of categorizing languages into
distinct types. This insight is valuable for understanding the nature of language and the
limitations of typological frameworks.

7.
Comparison of Dixon's and Jakobson's Approaches

Dixon's View:

• Dixon explains the accusative case primarily as an affix that marks a noun phrase
(NP) in a direct object (O) function. He notes the variability in how this function is
expressed in different languages:
o In Quechua, the accusative suffix appears only on the last word of the NP.
o In Latin, the accusative is marked on every word in the NP.
o In Turkish, the accusative is marked only when the noun has definite
reference.
• Dixon also highlights additional functions of the accusative, such as marking time or
being required after certain prepositions in Latin, showing how grammatical roles can
extend beyond the basic definition.

Jakobson's Approach:

• Roman Jakobson focused on the functional aspects of language, particularly how

different grammatical categories (like cases) convey meaning and how they interact
with syntactic structures. He emphasized the idea of markedness, where certain forms
are seen as more basic or neutral compared to others.
• Unlike Dixon, who details specific language examples and their varied applications of
the accusative case, Jakobson might emphasize more abstract relationships and how
features of language relate to universal principles.

Summary of Differences:

• Focus: Dixon provides concrete examples illustrating the variation of the accusative
case across languages, while Jakobson may take a more abstract theoretical stance,
focusing on functional relationships.
 • Detail vs. Theory: Dixon's approach is descriptive and detail-oriented regarding
specific languages, whereas Jakobson’s work often examines broader linguistic
theories and principles.

8.

Identifying Linguistic Types in Slovak and English from WALS

To identify linguistic types in Slovak and English, we can look at various linguistic features
available in the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS):

1. Word Order:
o English: Primarily SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) word order (e.g., "The cat (S)
eats (V) the food (O)").
o Slovak: While it can use SVO, Slovak is more flexible and can exhibit SOV
(Subject-Object-Verb) order in some contexts, allowing for various syntactic
constructions based on discourse needs.
2. Case Marking:
o English: Limited case marking; relies on word order and prepositions (e.g.,
"the cat" vs. "the cat's").
o Slovak: A rich system of case marking with multiple forms depending on the
grammatical role of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives.
3. Definite Article:
o English: Uses definite (the) and indefinite articles (a, an) before nouns.
o Slovak: Does not have a definite article; definiteness is typically expressed
through other grammatical means, such as case endings.
4. Adjective-Noun Order:
o English: Generally follows a Noun-Adjective order (e.g., "red car").
o Slovak: Allows for more flexibility, often placing adjectives before the noun
(e.g., "červené auto" for "red car"), but can also appear postnominally
depending on stylistic choices.

Chapter Two: Detailed Summary

Chapter Two of Essentials of Language Typology by Lívia Körtvelyessy delves into the
theoretical underpinnings and methodologies of linguistic typology, focusing on how
languages can be classified and compared based on their structural features. Below is a
detailed overview of the main themes and insights from the chapter.

Key Themes

1. Definition of Language Typology:

o Körtvelyessy defines linguistic typology as the systematic study of languages
based on structural similarities and differences, rather than their historical or
genealogical relationships. This approach allows for a more nuanced
understanding of how languages function and how they can be grouped based
on shared characteristics.
2. Typological Classification:
 o The chapter emphasizes different types of linguistic classification, including
morphological, syntactic, and phonological typologies. Each type provides a
framework for analyzing specific aspects of language structure:
▪ Morphological Typology: Focuses on how words are formed and
structured, distinguishing between isolating, agglutinative, and fusional
languages.
▪ Syntactic Typology: Examines sentence structure and the order of
constituents (e.g., Subject-Verb-Object vs. Subject-Object-Verb).
▪ Phonological Typology: Looks at sound systems and phoneme
inventories across languages.
3. Methodological Approaches:
o Körtvelyessy discusses the methodologies utilized in typological research,
highlighting the importance of using comprehensive language data and
corpora. She emphasizes the use of tools like the World Atlas of Language
Structures (WALS) to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison.
o The chapter also covers qualitative and quantitative methods for analyzing
linguistic features, showcasing how typologists can draw conclusions about
language structures based on empirical data.
4. The Role of Universals:
o The concept of linguistic universals is explored, addressing the extent to which
certain features can be deemed universal across languages. The chapter
discusses how these universals can serve as a foundation for typological
classification while acknowledging the challenges posed by language diversity.
5. Challenges in Typology:
o Körtvelyessy identifies various challenges in typological classification, such as
the complexity of languages that exhibit mixed features, which complicates the
classification process. She argues for flexibility in analysis to accommodate
languages that do not fit neatly into established categories.
6. Case Studies and Applications:
o Throughout the chapter, practical examples and case studies are provided to
illustrate the theoretical concepts discussed. These examples help contextualize
typological frameworks and demonstrate their application in real-world
linguistic analysis.

Important Insights

• Interconnectedness of Typology and Other Linguistic Fields: The chapter

emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of typological research, linking it to cognitive
science, anthropology, and sociolinguistics. This interconnectedness enriches the study
of language and deepens our understanding of linguistic phenomena.
• Dynamic Nature of Language: Körtvelyessy highlights that languages are dynamic
and constantly evolving, which poses a challenge for typologists trying to classify
them based on static features.

Conclusion

Chapter Two serves as a foundational overview of the principles and methodologies of

linguistic typology, preparing the reader for deeper exploration of specific typological
frameworks and their implications for understanding language. It lays the groundwork for
future chapters by establishing key concepts and methodologies that will be built upon.
TASKS:

1.

Rasmus Rask's quote highlights the significance of phonetic similarities in fundamental

vocabulary as evidence of a genetic relationship between languages. He asserts that when
essential words across languages show similarities substantial enough to formulate systematic
sound changes, it indicates a "basic kinship" between them.

To compare this with the views of William Jones and Edward Sapir, we can outline their
perspectives on language relationships and similarities.

a) William Jones

William Jones, an 18th-century philologist, is famous for his assertion regarding the
relationship between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. He argued that the similarities among these
languages were not coincidental, proposing that they stemmed from a common origin. Jones
emphasized:

• Common Ancestry: Jones introduced the idea of a shared linguistic heritage among
languages, suggesting that similarities arise from a common source.
• Systematic Sound Correspondences: He believed that the systematic nature of these
sound changes indicated a genetic relationship between languages.

Commonalities with Rask: Both Rask and Jones focus on phonetic and lexical similarities as
indicators of a deeper relationship between languages. They emphasize that systematic
changes and common vocabulary are crucial in identifying linguistic kinship.

b) Edward Sapir

Edward Sapir, a prominent 20th-century linguist, contributed to the understanding of language

and culture, emphasizing the social and psychological factors influencing language structure.
His views include:

• Cultural Context: Sapir argued that language is deeply connected to culture and
thought. He believed that while linguistic similarities can indicate relationships, the
context in which languages are used is equally important.
• Diversity of Language: Unlike Rask and Jones, who focused primarily on genetic
relationships, Sapir acknowledged the significance of language contact and diffusion,
suggesting that similarities could arise from borrowing and other sociolinguistic
factors.

Differences from Rask: While Rask and Jones emphasize phonetic and lexical similarities as
indicators of kinship, Sapir highlights the role of cultural factors and language contact. He
introduces a more sociolinguistic perspective, arguing that similarities can occur even
between languages that do not share a common ancestry.

Common Themes and Differences

Common Themes:

• Linguistic Similarities: All three linguists recognize the importance of phonetic and
lexical similarities in understanding language relationships.
• Systematic Analysis: Rask, Jones, and Sapir advocate for a systematic approach to
analyzing languages to uncover their relationships.

Differences:

• Focus on Origins: Rask and Jones emphasize genetic relationships through historical
linguistics, while Sapir incorporates cultural and social factors, suggesting that
linguistic similarities may also arise from language contact.
• Methodological Approaches: Rask and Jones rely heavily on phonetic analysis of
core vocabulary, whereas Sapir's approach is broader, considering language as a
cultural artifact.

Conclusion

In summary, while Rask, Jones, and Sapir share a foundational belief in the significance of
linguistic similarities, their approaches diverge in emphasis and methodology. Rask and Jones
lean toward historical linguistics and genetic relationships, while Sapir introduces a
sociolinguistic perspective, recognizing the complexities of language as a product of cultural
context.

2.

Wilhelm von Humboldt’s classification of languages represents a profound and philosophical

approach to linguistic typology, viewing languages not merely as systems of communication
but as distinct expressions of human thought and culture. Here’s an interpretation of
Humboldt’s classification and its implications:

Interpretation of Humboldt’s Classification

1. Philosophical Foundations:
o Humboldt posits that language is a manifestation of the human spirit (Geist).
Each language reflects the unique worldview of its speakers, implying that
linguistic diversity corresponds to cultural diversity. This idea aligns with
contemporary linguistic anthropology, which sees language as a carrier of
cultural identity (Duranti, 1997).
2. Four Classes of Languages:
o Humboldt's classification into four language types offers a hierarchical view
that emphasizes structural complexity. His categories are:
▪ Isolating Languages: Characterized by a lack of inflection (e.g.,
Mandarin), Humboldt describes these as "formless," suggesting a
simplicity that limits expressiveness.
▪ Inflected Languages: These languages, which include many Indo-
European languages (e.g., Latin, Greek), are considered to possess a
"true sense of form" due to their systematic use of affixes and case
markers that add meaning and clarity.
 ▪ Incorporating Languages: Examples include certain American Indian
languages where verb roots incorporate objects, demonstrating a high
degree of complexity in form and structure.
▪ A Fourth Class: This category addresses languages that don't fit neatly
into traditional classifications, recognizing the limitations of binary or
tripartite models.
3. Rejection of Evolutionary Hierarchies:
o Humboldt explicitly rejects any notion of linguistic evolution from "lower" to
"higher" forms. He argues that all languages are equally valid as expressions of
the human experience, countering the ethnocentric perspectives that often
dominated earlier linguistic thought (Humboldt, 1836). This perspective
resonates with modern views that advocate for linguistic relativity, asserting
that no language is superior to another in terms of complexity or
expressiveness.
4. Structuralist Implications:
o Humboldt’s focus on form and structure in languages laid groundwork for later
structuralist thinkers, such as Ferdinand de Saussure, who emphasized the
systemic nature of language. His ideas foreshadowed the 20th-century
linguistic emphasis on structural analysis and the relationships between
language, thought, and culture.
5. Cultural and Linguistic Relativity:
o Humboldt’s view implies a form of linguistic relativity, suggesting that the
structure of a language influences its speakers' cognition and perception of
reality. This aligns with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that
language shapes thought (Whorf, 1956).

CHAPTER 3

focuses on phonological typology. This chapter is crucial for understanding the variety of
sound systems across languages and how phonological features can be systematically
compared.

Key Topics and Insights:

1. Phoneme Inventory Typology:

o The chapter begins with a discussion on the range and diversity of phoneme
inventories (the number of distinct sounds in a language). Some languages
have as few as 11 phonemes (e.g., Hawaiian), while others have over 100 (e.g.,
!Xóõ).
o Languages are classified based on their vowel and consonant inventories. The
chapter explores why some languages have very few vowel contrasts, while
others, like French, have many nasalized and rounded vowels.
2. Consonant Systems:
o A significant section deals with consonant systems in different languages,
focusing on key distinctions like voicing (voiced vs. voiceless sounds), place
of articulation (e.g., bilabial, dental, velar), and manner of articulation (e.g.,
stops, fricatives, nasals).
 o It also highlights more complex consonantal features, such as ejective
consonants found in languages like Amharic and click consonants in Khoisan
languages.
3. Vowel Systems:
o The chapter delves into vowel systems, categorizing languages based on their
number of vowel contrasts. Languages like Spanish have relatively simple
systems (with five vowels), while others like Danish have more complex
vowel distinctions, including length and tenseness.
4. Tonal and Stress Systems:
o Another important section focuses on tone and stress in phonological systems.
Tone languages, such as Chinese and Thai, use pitch to distinguish meaning,
while stress systems (e.g., in English) use emphasis on certain syllables.
o The chapter compares tonal languages to intonation languages (like English),
which do not rely on pitch for lexical meaning but use it for intonational
variation (e.g., questions vs. statements).
5. Phonotactics:
o The chapter also covers phonotactics, or the rules governing how sounds can
be arranged in a language. For instance, some languages allow complex
consonant clusters (e.g., Georgian), while others, like Japanese, have more
restrictive syllable structures.
o This section also explains why certain sound sequences are more common than
others across languages, often due to constraints on articulation and ease of
pronunciation.
6. Prosody and Suprasegmentals:
o Prosody (the rhythm, stress, and intonation patterns of speech)
and suprasegmental features (e.g., length, tone, pitch) are analyzed as critical
components of phonological systems. These elements often affect meaning or
structure, adding another layer of complexity to language comparison.

Major Insights:

• Typological Patterns: The chapter provides a global view of how languages can vary
significantly in their sound inventories and phonological rules, but it also shows
recurring patterns (like the frequent use of five-vowel systems).
• Phonological Universals: Certain phonological features, like voicing
contrasts and syllable structure preferences, are found across many languages. This
supports the idea of phonological universals that reflect general constraints of human
speech production.
• Implications for Language Learning: Understanding phonological typology is vital
for linguists, especially when considering how speakers of one language acquire the
sounds of another language, which might have drastically different phonotactics and
sound inventories.

Comparison to Other Fields:

• Phonological typology links closely to articulatory phonetics, since understanding

how sounds are produced is key to categorizing them typologically. It also intersects
with historical linguistics, as phonological change is a major factor in language
evolution.
Key Themes and Concepts

1. Typological Classification:
o The chapter introduces the major typological classifications of languages,
primarily focusing on morphological and syntactic types. It distinguishes
between isolating, agglutinative, fusional, and polysynthetic languages. This
classification aids in understanding how different languages construct words
and sentences, impacting their expressiveness and grammatical complexity
(Croft, 2003).
2. Morphological Typology:
o Körtvelyessy explores morphological typology, which classifies languages
based on how they form words. For example:
▪ Isolating Languages: Characterized by minimal inflection and a
reliance on word order and particles to convey grammatical
relationships (e.g., Mandarin Chinese).
▪ Agglutinative Languages: Feature a high degree of affixation, where
words are formed by stringing together morphemes, each with a
specific meaning (e.g., Turkish).
▪ Fusional Languages: Words may contain morphemes that express
multiple grammatical functions simultaneously, making them less
transparent than in agglutinative languages (e.g., Latin).
▪ Polysynthetic Languages: These languages can form very complex
words that incorporate several morphemes, often including subjects and
objects within a single word (e.g., Inuktitut).
3. Syntactic Typology:
o The chapter discusses syntactic typology, particularly the order of subject (S),
verb (V), and object (O). This aspect of typology classifies languages into
several types, such as SVO (e.g., English), SOV (e.g., Japanese), and VSO
(e.g., Classical Arabic). The syntactic structure significantly influences how
information is conveyed and understood within different linguistic frameworks
(Haspelmath, 2007).
4. Functional Typology:
o Körtvelyessy also touches on functional typology, examining how different
languages achieve similar communicative goals through various structural
means. This approach underscores the idea that languages can differ in form
while serving the same functions in communication (Bybee, 2001).
5. Cultural and Cognitive Aspects:
o The chapter emphasizes the relationship between language structure and
cultural context. It discusses how typological features can reflect cognitive
processes and cultural values. For instance, the prominence of certain
grammatical categories may correlate with cultural priorities, affecting how
speakers of different languages conceptualize the world (Sapir, 1921).

Important Discussions and Implications

• Comparative Methodology:
o Körtvelyessy advocates for a rigorous comparative methodology in typological
studies, encouraging linguists to employ a variety of analytical tools to
understand language systems deeply. This includes the examination of
 language data from diverse sources, contributing to a more comprehensive
view of linguistic diversity (Bickel, 2007).
• Linguistic Universals:
o The chapter touches upon the concept of linguistic universals, which are
features or principles that are common across languages. Körtvelyessy
explores how these universals can be identified and what implications they
have for understanding human cognition and language structure (Greenberg,
1966).
• Typological Implications for Language Documentation:
o The chapter concludes with a discussion on the importance of typological
insights for language documentation and preservation efforts. By
understanding the structural characteristics of languages, linguists can better
assess the impact of language endangerment and work towards effective
revitalization strategies (Crystal, 2000).

TASKS:

1.

449

Event: Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons

Influence: This marked the beginning of Old English, as Germanic tribes, including the
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, invaded Britain, bringing their languages and cultural influences.
The infusion of these languages laid the foundation for what would evolve into Old English,
characterized by a significant Germanic vocabulary.

1066

Event: The Norman Conquest

Influence: The Norman invasion introduced a wealth of Norman French vocabulary into
English, especially in areas of law, art, and government. This bilingual environment
contributed to the development of Middle English, leading to a significant linguistic shift
where French and Latin words began to intermingle with Old English.

1150

Event: Transition from Old English to Middle English

Influence: By this time, Old English had evolved significantly due to various influences,
including the Norman Conquest. Middle English became characterized by a more simplified
grammar and a richer vocabulary due to the influx of Norman French words.

1362

Event: The Statute of Pleading

Influence: This statute mandated that English be used in court proceedings instead of French.
This was a crucial turning point for the English language, reinforcing its status and usage in
official and legal contexts, paving the way for its dominance in England.
1388

Event: Chaucer’s "The Canterbury Tales"

Influence: Geoffrey Chaucer's work is significant in the history of English literature and
language as it showcased Middle English in a prominent literary form, helping to legitimize
the use of English in literature and culture. His works influenced the standardization of
English spelling and grammar.

1400

Event: Emergence of Early Modern English

Influence: By the early 15th century, the transition to Early Modern English began,
characterized by further shifts in pronunciation (the Great Vowel Shift) and vocabulary
expansion due to Renaissance influences, which included many Latin and Greek terms.

1476

Event: Introduction of the printing press by William Caxton

Influence: Caxton's establishment of the printing press in England standardized English
spelling and grammar through printed materials, helping to stabilize and disseminate the
language more widely across the population.

1564

Event: Birth of William Shakespeare

Influence: Shakespeare's prolific use of English in his plays and poetry expanded the
vocabulary and expressive capabilities of the language. His innovative use of syntax and
coinage of new words left a lasting impact on English literature and linguistics.

1607

Event: Establishment of the Jamestown Colony

Influence: The colonization of America marked the beginning of American English, which
would evolve differently from British English, creating distinct dialects and vocabularies over
time.

1702

Event: First daily newspaper in England

Influence: The publication of The Daily Courant marked the rise of print media in English,
contributing to the standardization of the language and increasing literacy, as well as
influencing public discourse and communication.

1828

Event: Publication of Webster’s Dictionary

Influence: Noah Webster’s dictionary played a pivotal role in standardizing American
English, differentiating it from British English. It also popularized American spelling
conventions.
1922

Event: Establishment of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

Influence: The BBC's broadcasting in English helped to standardize pronunciation and usage,
influencing spoken English and providing a model for 'correct' English usage throughout the
UK.

1928

Event: Publication of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary

Influence: This comprehensive dictionary documented the English language extensively,
including etymology and historical usage, reflecting the language's evolution and serving as a
crucial reference for scholars and the public.

2.

Cognate words are words in different languages that have a common etymological origin.
They usually arise from a shared ancestral language and often exhibit similarities in
pronunciation and meaning. The identification of cognate words is crucial in historical
linguistics for establishing genetic relationships among languages.

Examples of Cognate Words

Here are some examples of cognate words across English, Slovak, and German:

1. English: "mother"
Slovak: "matka"
German: "Mutter"
o Explanation: All three words derive from the Proto-Indo-European root
*méh₂tēr, meaning "mother." This shows a genetic relationship among these
languages.
2. English: "father"
Slovak: "otec"
German: "Vater"
o Explanation: These words trace back to the Proto-Indo-European root *pəter,
which also means "father." The phonetic variations reflect the evolutionary
paths of these languages.
3. English: "hand"
Slovak: "ruka"
German: "Hand"
o Explanation: While "hand" in English and German are direct cognates, Slovak
"ruka" comes from a different root but is related in terms of its Proto-Slavic
ancestry.
4. English: "night"
Slovak: "noc"
German: "Nacht"
o Explanation: These words come from the Proto-Indo-European root *nókʷts,
which refers to "night," showcasing similarities in phonetic structure across
these languages.
Significance of Cognates

Cognates help linguists trace back the evolution of languages and understand their historical
relationships. They provide evidence for language families and assist in reconstructing proto-
languages, enhancing our understanding of how languages have diverged over time.

4. The notion of genus in the context of language classification, as explained by Dryer

(1989), refers to a level of linguistic categorization that is intended to be comparable across
different language families worldwide. This concept draws parallels with biological
classification, where a genus comprises a group of closely related species. In linguistics, a
genus represents a group of languages that are evidently related without the need for extensive
comparative analysis.

Key Points About the Notion of Genus

1. Comparative Level of Classification:

o The genus is defined as a category that allows for comparison across languages
from different families, aiming to establish a classification system that reflects
historical and genealogical relationships among languages.
2. Relatedness and Obviousness:
o Languages grouped into a genus exhibit a clear and recognizable relatedness
that most linguists would accept. This contrasts with classifications that
involve deeper genealogical relationships, which may require more systematic
study and are often less universally accepted.
3. Time Depth:
o The genus typically encompasses languages that share a common ancestry
within a time frame of no more than 3500 to 4000 years. If the time since the
split of a language group exceeds this threshold, it may be considered a
separate genus. Thus, genus is a dynamic classification that reflects both
linguistic relationships and historical timelines.
4. Examples:
o Standard subfamilies of the Indo-European language family, such as Germanic,
Slavic, and Celtic, serve as examples of genera. Celtic is noted for having a
clearer classification compared to Germanic or Slavic, which have more
complicated histories and relationships.
5. Subjectivity and Expert Input:
o The identification of genera is somewhat subjective, often based on educated
guesses and discussions among specialists in the field. This subjectivity
underscores the need for collaboration and ongoing debate within the linguistic
community.
6. Limitations:
o The concept of genus is part of a broader classification system, and linguists
are encouraged to refine and challenge these categorizations as new evidence

5.
Yes, there are several non-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe, and some of these
languages are considered isolates, meaning they have no known relatives or closely related
languages. Here’s an overview:

Non-Indo-European Languages in Europe

1. Finnish:
o Belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family, which also includes Estonian and
Hungarian. Finnish is distinct from the Indo-European languages of most of its
neighbors and is known for its unique grammatical structure and vocabulary.
2. Hungarian:
o Another Finno-Ugric language, Hungarian is primarily spoken in Hungary but
also by Hungarian communities in surrounding countries. It features complex
case systems and a rich system of vowel harmony.
3. Basque:
o Language Isolate: Basque (Euskara) is a unique example of a language
isolate, meaning it has no known relatives. It is spoken in the Basque Country,
which spans parts of northern Spain and southwestern France. Its origins are a
topic of much scholarly debate, and it stands out in Europe for its
distinctiveness from surrounding Indo-European languages.
4. Estonian:
o Also part of the Finno-Ugric language family, Estonian shares similarities with
Finnish but is influenced by its proximity to Germanic and Slavic languages.
5. Sami Languages:
o Spoken by the Sami people in northern Scandinavia, the Sami languages (such
as Northern Sami, Lule Sami, and Southern Sami) belong to the Uralic family,
like Finnish and Hungarian. They are distinct from Indo-European languages
and are often classified together with other indigenous languages in the region.
6. Georgian:
o While primarily associated with the South Caucasus region, Georgian is
sometimes included in discussions of European languages due to its historical
and cultural connections. It is part of the Kartvelian language family and is not
related to any Indo-European languages.

Language Isolates in Europe

• Basque: As mentioned earlier, Basque is the most prominent language isolate in

Europe. It has survived through centuries of linguistic shifts and remains a key part of
Basque identity.

6.

The conclusions about Indo-European culture drawn by John Algeo are based on the study of
cognate words—words in different languages that have a common etymological origin.
Here’s a breakdown of how scientists arrive at these conclusions:

1. Cognates and Linguistic Reconstruction

• Cognate Words: By examining cognate words across various Indo-European

languages, linguists can reconstruct aspects of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) culture and
 lifestyle. For example, words related to family, agriculture, and technology provide
insights into their societal structure and daily life.
• Comparative Method: Linguists use the comparative method to identify similarities
in vocabulary and grammar across languages, which helps them establish historical
relationships between languages and infer characteristics of the parent language.

2. Cultural Inferences from Vocabulary

• Complex Family Relationships: The presence of specific terms related to family

indicates a society that valued kinship and had a complex family structure.
• Agricultural Practices: Words associated with farming tools (like plow) and
domesticated animals suggest that the PIE speakers were engaged in agriculture rather
than a nomadic lifestyle.
• Technology: The existence of terms for the wheel, axle, and yoke indicates an
advanced understanding of technology and transportation.

3. Social Structure and Economy

• Wealth Measurement: The terms for cattle and wealth illustrate the importance of
livestock in their economy and social status. The derivation of words related to wealth
from cattle shows that livestock was a fundamental measure of wealth in Indo-
European societies.
• Polytheism and Religion: The identification of a Sky Father across multiple Indo-
European cultures suggests a shared mythological framework, revealing insights into
their spiritual beliefs.

4. Geographical and Environmental Context

• Absence of Ocean Vocabulary: The claim about the absence of a common word for
"ocean" suggests that the PIE homeland was likely inland rather than coastal. This
inference is based on the idea that if a culture had significant interaction with the
ocean, we would expect to find specific vocabulary related to it.

7.

How the Indo-European Language Family Was Discovered

The Indo-European language family was discovered through comparative linguistics, where
linguists noticed similarities in vocabulary and grammar among languages spoken across
Europe and parts of Asia.

Structural Characteristics of the Indo-European Family

• Branches: The family is divided into several branches, including Germanic, Romance,
Slavic, Celtic, Indo-Iranian, and others, each comprising languages that share a
common ancestry.
• Shared Features: These languages exhibit shared phonetic, morphological, and
syntactic features, which linguists use to trace back to their common roots in PIE.
In summary, the analysis of cognate words allows linguists to reconstruct aspects of the
culture, technology, and social structure of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European. The
comparative method, combined with the study of vocabulary, leads to informed hypotheses
about the lifestyle and geographical context of these ancient peoples.

For more detailed information, you can explore Algeo’s work or resources on historical
linguistics and the Indo-European language family.

8.

Core vocabulary consists of a set of basic words that are fundamental to a language and are
typically resistant to change over time. These words often encompass essential concepts that
are crucial for everyday communication and survival. Here are some key characteristics and
examples of core vocabulary:

Characteristics of Core Vocabulary

1. Stability Over Time: Core vocabulary tends to remain relatively stable across
generations and is less likely to be borrowed from other languages. This stability
makes these words valuable for linguistic reconstruction.
2. Universal Concepts: Core vocabulary usually includes terms that relate to basic
human experiences and needs, such as body parts, natural elements, family relations,
and fundamental actions.
3. Cross-Linguistic Comparison: Core vocabulary provides a basis for comparing
languages within the same family or across different families, helping linguists
identify cognates and reconstruct proto-languages.

Examples of Core Vocabulary

Core vocabulary often includes the following types of words:

• Body Parts: e.g., hand, eye, foot.

• Basic Actions: e.g., to eat, to drink, to go.
• Natural Elements: e.g., water, fire, earth.
• Family Relations: e.g., mother, father, brother.
• Pronouns: e.g., I, you, he/she.
• Colors: e.g., black, white, red.

Importance in Linguistics

The study of core vocabulary is crucial in comparative linguistics and historical linguistics. It
helps researchers trace the evolution of languages, identify genetic relationships between
languages, and reconstruct proto-languages. By analyzing core vocabulary, linguists can make
informed hypotheses about the culture and environment of ancient speakers, as these words
often reflect universal human experiences.

10.

To decode the given information about the English language, you can break it down as
follows:
 • Language: English
• Language Family: Germanic
• Language Group: Indo-European
• Region: UK

Now, let's encode the Slovak language in a similar way:

• Language: Slovak
• Language Family: West Slavic
• Language Group: Indo-European
• Region: Slovakia

Breakdown of Slovak Language Encoding

• Language: Slovak is a member of the West Slavic languages, which include Czech
and Polish among others.
• Language Family: It belongs to the Slavic family, which is part of the larger Indo-
European family of languages.
• Language Group: Within the Slavic languages, Slovak falls under the West
Slavic subgroup, which also includes Czech and Sorbian.
• Region: Slovak is primarily spoken in Slovakia, a country in Central Europe.

If you're looking for more detailed linguistic classifications or historical context regarding the
Slovak language, you can refer to sources like the Ethnologue or WALS (World Atlas of
Language Structures).

11.

Edward Sapir’s quote, “No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as
representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct
worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached,” reflects a deep
understanding of the relationship between language, culture, and perception of reality. This
idea is central to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure and vocabulary
of a language shape its speakers' worldview and how they perceive and interact with the
world.

Context of the Discussion on Language Families

When discussing language families, Sapir’s words imply that even languages within the same
family, which share a common ancestor (like Indo-European languages), can diverge
dramatically in the way they encode social and cultural experiences. Even though languages
like English and Slovak both belong to the Indo-European family, the way they structure
social experiences, time, kinship, and space can be profoundly different.

Key Points:

1. Cultural Contexts Embedded in Language: Sapir argues that languages don't just
label an already understood, universal reality but create distinct realities based on
cultural contexts. For example, words for family relations in languages like Slovak,
 English, or German have subtle but important cultural distinctions in meaning, kinship
structure, and social importance.
2. Perception of Reality through Language: The idea that language shapes reality
means that even closely related languages can reflect different worldviews. This is
important in linguistic typology, where languages from the same family (like Indo-
European) still diverge significantly in how they express ideas like time, motion, or
social roles. English, for example, uses tenses to express time quite differently from
Slovak.
3. Beyond Language Families: Even though languages in the same family share a
common ancestor, Sapir highlights that their evolution leads to unique "worlds" or
realities for their speakers. This challenges the assumption that speakers of related
languages experience or understand the world in the same way, even if their languages
have common roots.

12.

Genealogical Classification Comparison (WALS vs. Ethnologue)

Hungarian:

• WALS: Classified as Uralic, specifically in the Finno-Ugric branch.

• Ethnologue: Confirms the Uralic classification, also placing it in the Finno-
Ugric subgroup.
• Comparison: Both sources agree that Hungarian belongs to the Uralic family.

Maltese:

• WALS: Classified as Afro-Asiatic, specifically in the Semitic branch, closely related

to Arabic dialects.
• Ethnologue: Also classifies Maltese under the Afro-Asiatic family in
the Semitic group, emphasizing its relation to Arabic.
• Comparison: Both sources classify Maltese as part of the Afro-Asiatic family,
specifically Semitic.

Hausa:

• WALS: Classified as Afro-Asiatic, specifically in the Chadic branch.

• Ethnologue: Similarly places Hausa in the Afro-Asiatic family under
the Chadic subgroup.
• Comparison: Both WALS and Ethnologue classify Hausa as Afro-Asiatic, under the
Chadic subgroup.

Hopi:

• WALS: Classified as Uto-Aztecan, specifically in the Northern Uto-Aztecan branch.

• Ethnologue: Confirms the classification of Hopi as part of the Uto-Aztecan language
family.
• Comparison: Both sources agree that Hopi belongs to the Uto-Aztecan family.

13.
Isolates in WALS

An isolate is a language that cannot be classified into any known language family.

Some examples of language isolates from WALS include:

• Basque: Spoken in the Basque Country region (Spain and France). It is one of the
most famous examples of a language isolate, as it has no known relatives.
• Korean: While there is some debate about Korean’s classification, many linguists
consider it an isolate, as it doesn’t fit easily into any established language family.
• Ainu: A language isolate spoken by the Ainu people in Japan, particularly in
Hokkaido.
• Burushaski: Spoken in northern Pakistan, this language is also considered an isolate
with no proven connections to other languages

14.

The Nostratic hypothesis is a highly ambitious and controversial linguistic theory that posits
the existence of a macrofamily of languages, grouping several distinct language families such
as Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic (including Semitic), Dravidian, and others
into a single large family. Proposed primarily by linguists Aharon
Dolgopolsky and Vladimir Illich-Svitych in the mid-20th century, the hypothesis suggests
that these families all descend from a common proto-language, which might have been
spoken around 15,000 years ago.

Why Is the Nostratic Hypothesis Controversial?

1. Lack of Sufficient Evidence: One of the main criticisms of the Nostratic hypothesis
is the scarcity of convincing, systematic evidence. Comparative linguistics
traditionally relies on rigorous methods such as the comparative method, which
reconstructs proto-languages based on systematic sound correspondences and
grammatical patterns. The Nostratic hypothesis, however, is seen by many as relying
more heavily on superficial lexical similarities(similar-looking words) rather than
deeper grammatical or phonological patterns.
2. Methodological Concerns: The methods used to support the Nostratic hypothesis,
such as lexicostatistics(measuring degrees of lexical similarity), are considered
problematic. While lexicostatistics is a tool in historical linguistics, it is often
criticized for lacking precision and overemphasizing vocabulary comparisons,
which can be influenced by borrowing between languages or chance resemblances.
Mainstream linguists argue that reconstructing such ancient proto-languages, as
suggested by the Nostratic hypothesis, requires more systematic and rigorous
methods beyond just lexical similarities.
3. Time Depth: Another major issue with the hypothesis is its deep time depth. The
proposed time frame (15,000–20,000 years ago) is far deeper than what linguists
generally consider plausible for language reconstruction. The Indo-European family,
for example, is thought to have a time depth of around 6,000–8,000 years, and going
beyond that timeline introduces significant uncertainties. Over such a long period,
languages tend to change so much that reliably tracing their lineage becomes
extremely difficult.
 4. Debates Over Language Families: Some of the language families proposed as part of
the Nostratic group, like Altaic or Dravidian, are themselves controversial or
disputed. For example, the existence of the Altaic family(which supposedly includes
Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages) is a debated topic in itself, and not all
linguists agree that these languages form a coherent family. This adds another layer of
complexity to the Nostratic hypothesis.
5. Historical-Political Factors: Some critics argue that certain linguistic macrofamily
proposals, like Nostratic, have been influenced by cultural or nationalistic
motivations. In some cases, there is suspicion that these hypotheses are motivated by
a desire to show ancient historical connections between disparate cultures, rather than
being based on solid linguistic evidence.

CHAPTER 4

focus on syntactic typology. This chapter is central to understanding how languages organize
words and structures at the sentence level, and it highlights various patterns that occur in
different languages worldwide.

Key Topics and Insights:

1. Word Order Typology:

o This section focuses on the basic word order patterns found across languages,
such as Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), Subject-Object-Verb (SOV), Verb-
Subject-Object (VSO), and less common types like VOS and OSV.
o The chapter also explores how certain word order preferences influence other
grammatical structures, such as the positioning of adjectives, adpositions
(prepositions and postpositions), and question particles.
2. Syntactic Structures and Universal Tendencies:
o An important part of this chapter is the discussion of syntactic universals—
patterns that recur across different languages. It highlights how these syntactic
structures can reveal common cognitive constraints or cultural influences in
human communication.
o Greenberg's Universals are also touched upon, especially his observation that
certain syntactic structures tend to cluster together. For example, SOV
languages often have postpositions instead of prepositions.
3. Head-Dependent Relations:
o This section explains the head-dependent typology, examining languages
based on whether the "head" of a phrase (such as the verb in a sentence)
precedes or follows its dependents (such as the subject or object).
o Head-initial languages tend to place verbs before objects (like English), while
head-final languages often place objects before verbs (like Japanese).
4. Agreement and Alignment Typology:
o The chapter explores the alignment systems that define how languages mark
the relationships between the subject, object, and verb in a sentence. This
includes nominative-accusative systems (where subjects are treated the same
in both transitive and intransitive sentences) and ergative-absolutive systems
(where the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb are
treated similarly).
o The chapter also covers agreement in person, number, and gender, which
languages use to create cohesion between subjects, verbs, and objects.
 5. Grammatical Relations:
o Another key discussion involves grammatical relations, such as the roles of
subject, object, and indirect object in sentence structure. The chapter examines
how these relationships can differ significantly between languages, particularly
in languages with flexible word orders or those that rely heavily on case
marking (like Russian).
6. Functional Perspectives on Syntax:
o The chapter includes a discussion on functional typology, which looks at how
languages balance structural choices based on communicative needs. This
includes the trade-offs between clarity, efficiency, and the speaker's intention.

Major Insights:

• Universality vs. Diversity: Chapter 4 balances the idea of universal principles with
the vast diversity in syntactic structures across the world’s languages. It shows that
while certain patterns are frequent, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to syntactic
structure.
• Implications for Cognitive Linguistics: The typological patterns discussed often
reflect deeper cognitive principles, such as how humans process information and
manage complexity in communication.
• Theoretical Application: The chapter stresses that the observed patterns have
practical implications for language learning, translation, and even artificial
intelligence, where understanding word order and syntactic relations is crucial.

TASKS :

1.

2.

In the chapter on Vowel Inventories in the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS),
vowel systems of languages are classified into three categories based on the number of
distinct vowel qualities they contain:

1. Small vowel inventories: 2-4 vowel qualities.

2. Average vowel inventories: 5-6 vowel qualities.
3. Large vowel inventories: 7-14 vowel qualities.

Areal Distribution:

• Small vowel inventories are concentrated in regions like Australia and parts of the
Americas.
• Average vowel inventories dominate across much of the world, including Europe,
Africa, and parts of Asia.
• Large vowel inventories are often found in parts of Africa (e.g., Khoisan languages)
and the Pacific.

Examples of Languages:
 • Small vowel inventory: Pirahã (spoken in Brazil).
• Average vowel inventory: Slovak and English (both fall under the category of
average vowel inventories with around five vowel qualities).
• Large vowel inventory: !Xóõ (a Khoisan language with many vowel distinctions).

Slovak and English, as mentioned, both belong to the average category, typical of many Indo-
European languages. You can explore further details on the WALS database, including visual
maps and more examples

3.

In the chapter on Consonant Inventories in the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS),
languages are classified based on the number of consonant sounds they have. Here’s a
breakdown of language types with examples for each category:

1. Small Consonant Inventories (1-12 consonants):

o Example Language: Hawaiian has a notably small consonant inventory,
featuring just 8 consonant phonemes: /p, k, ʔ, m, n, l, h, w/.
2. Average Consonant Inventories (13-25 consonants):
o Example Language: Spanish has a relatively average consonant inventory,
with about 18 consonants, including sounds like /b, d, f, g, k, m, n, ɲ, r, s, t/.
3. Large Consonant Inventories (26 or more consonants):
o Example Language: Taa (also known as !Xóõ), a Khoisan language, boasts
an extensive consonant inventory with around 80 distinct consonant sounds,
including numerous clicks.

Summary of Findings:

• Small Inventories: Hawaiian (8 consonants).

• Average Inventories: Spanish (18 consonants).
• Large Inventories: Taa (!Xóõ) (approximately 80 consonants).

4.

In the chapter on Consonant-Vowel Ratio by Ian Maddieson in the World Atlas of Language
Structures (WALS), languages are classified based on the ratio of consonants to vowels in
their phonological systems. Here's an overview of how languages are classified, how the ratio
is calculated, and observations regarding geographical distribution:

Classification of Languages

• Languages are classified into categories based on their Consonant-Vowel (C/V)

ratios, which reflects the number of consonants compared to vowels in a language's
phonetic inventory. This ratio can reveal patterns about how different languages
structure their sound systems.

Calculation of the C/V Ratio

 • The C/V ratio is calculated by dividing the total number of consonant phonemes by
the total number of vowel phonemes in a language. For example, if a language has 20
consonants and 5 vowels, its C/V ratio would be 4:1.

Geographical Distribution

• The geographical distribution of individual C/V ratios reveals interesting patterns:

o High C/V Ratios: These are often found in languages of certain regions, such
as African languages or some Caucasian languages, where a larger number
of consonants relative to vowels is common.
o Low C/V Ratios: Languages with a higher proportion of vowels compared to
consonants tend to be found in regions like Oceania and Southeast Asia. For
instance, Hawaiian has a notably low C/V ratio.

Key Observations

• Variability: There is considerable variability in C/V ratios across languages,

influenced by factors such as phonological structure and linguistic evolution.
• Patterns: Specific regions display clusters of languages with similar C/V ratios,
suggesting a connection between geography and phonological characteristics.

5.

In the WALS chapter on Syllable Structures, Ian Maddieson examines the diverse syllable
types present across languages and their geographic distribution. Here's a summary of the key
findings:

Syllable Structure Types

The chapter categorizes languages into several syllable types based on their phonological
properties:

1. CV (Consonant-Vowel): This is the most common syllable structure globally.

2. CVC (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant): This structure allows for more complex
syllable formation.
3. V (Vowel) and VC (Vowel-Consonant): These structures are less common but still
present in certain languages.
4. More complex structures: Languages may exhibit combinations such as CCV
(Consonant-Consonant-Vowel) or CCCV (Consonant-Consonant-Consonant-Vowel),
which indicate a richer consonantal framework.

Geographical Distribution

• Global Trends: The distribution of syllable structures is not random. For

example, languages in the Americasoften exhibit simpler structures like CV,
while languages in Africa and Eurasia tend to have more complex structures with
clusters of consonants.
• Language Families: Specific language families also show tendencies toward certain
syllable structures. For instance, Semitic languages tend to have more complex
syllable structures compared to languages from other families.
Specific Language Examples

• English: English primarily follows a CVC structure, but it also allows for a variety of
complex syllables, including CCV and CCVC.
• Slovak: Slovak similarly exhibits CVC structures but is characterized by a wider
range of syllable types, including instances of CCV, reflecting its Slavic roots.

6.

The consonantal system of Anamuxra is structured around four points of articulation: bilabial,
alveolar, velar, and palatal. Each point of articulation has different phoneme types,
contributing to a diverse inventory of consonants. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the
consonantal system based on Ingram's (2001) description:

Consonants of Anamuxra

Place of Articulation Obstruents Prenasal Nasals Liquid Glides

Bilabial p, β b m w
Alveolar t, s d, z n r y
Velar k, ɣ g ŋ
Palatal

Key Features

• Obstruents: Include stops and fricatives that are produced with obstruction in the
vocal tract. For example, the bilabial stop /p/ and the alveolar fricative /s/ are both part
of the obstruent category.
• Prenasal: These consonants combine a nasal feature with another articulation, such as
/b/ and /d/.
• Nasals: Represented by /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/, they allow airflow through the nasal cavity.
• Liquid: The sound /r/ is classified as a liquid, allowing for a smooth flow of air.
• Glides: Include /y/ and /w/, which are semi-vowel sounds that connect syllables.

Observations

This system shows a balanced distribution of consonants across different articulatory points,
with a mix of stops, fricatives, nasals, and approximants. The presence of both voiced and
voiceless forms (e.g., /p/ vs. /b/ and /t/ vs. /d/) allows for phonemic contrast, enhancing the
phonological richness of Anamuxra.

The classification reflects not only the phonetic characteristics of the language but also its
potential morphological and syntactical structures, aligning with general principles observed
in phonological systems globally
The consonantal systems of Anamuxra and Sentani reveal interesting similarities and
differences when compared to English. Below is a breakdown of each system followed by a
comparative analysis.

Consonants of Sentani

According to Cowan (1965, p. 5), the consonants in Sentani are classified as follows:

Type Place of Articulation Examples

Plosives Labials b, k
Gingivals d
Velar
Fricatives Labials f
Laryngeal h
Nasals Labials m
Gingivals n
Lateral Gingivals l
Semivowels Labials w
Prepalatals j

Consonants of English

The consonant inventory of English, as typically described in phonological studies, includes

the following categories:

Type Place of Articulation Examples

Plosives Labials p, b
Alveolar t, d
Velar k, g
Fricatives Labiodental f, v
Dental θ (th), ð (th)
Alveolar s, z
Post-alveolar ʃ (sh), ʒ (zh)
Glottal h
Nasals Labials m
Alveolar n
Velar ŋ (ng)
Lateral Alveolar l
Semivowels Labials w
Palatal j (y)

Comparative Analysis

1. Plosive Consonants:
 o Sentani includes the plosives /b/, /d/, and /k/, similar to English, which has /p/,
/b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, and /g/. Notably, Sentani does not have /p/ or /g/, which are
present in English.
2. Fricative Consonants:
o Sentani features only /f/ and /h/ as fricatives, while English has a wider range
including /v/, /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, and /ʒ/. This indicates a more limited fricative
inventory in Sentani.
3. Nasal Consonants:
o Both languages have the nasals /m/ and /n/. However, English includes an
additional velar nasal /ŋ/, which is absent in Sentani.
4. Lateral Consonants:
o Both languages include the lateral consonant /l/. However, English has the
potential for variations (e.g., dark L in certain positions).
5. Semivowels:
o Both languages include the semivowels /w/ and /j/, which is a common feature
across many languages.

Conclusion

The Sentani consonantal system is more limited in terms of plosives and fricatives compared
to English, which has a broader variety of sounds. This reflects a general tendency in
language phonetics, where some languages may have fewer phonemes than others. The
differences in inventory can influence phonetic diversity, pronunciation, and even language
learning challenges for speakers of one language learning the other.

7.

Chinese is known for its use of tones, which are crucial for distinguishing meaning. There are
typically four primary tones in Mandarin Chinese, along with a neutral tone. Here’s a brief
overview of these tones:

1. First Tone: High level (as described in your quote).

2. Second Tone: Rising, like asking a question (e.g., from low to high).
3. Third Tone: Falling-rising, which starts mid, dips down, then rises again.
4. Fourth Tone: Falling, sharp and strong, akin to a command or an exclamation.
5. Neutral Tone: This tone is short and light, often depending on the tone of the
preceding syllable.

Tone Language Classification

Mandarin Chinese belongs to the category of tonal languages, where pitch and tone
variations can change the meaning of words entirely. This is a prominent feature of many
Sino-Tibetan languages, making tonal distinctions essential for effective communication.

Comparison with English and Slovak

In contrast, English and Slovak are considered non-tonal languages. While they do employ
pitch variations for intonation (to convey emotions or questions), these variations do not
change the lexical meaning of words.
 • English: Uses intonation patterns to express different meanings (e.g., rising intonation
for questions), but it does not use tones as part of its phonemic inventory.
• Slovak: Similar to English, it employs intonation for emphasis and emotion, without
utilizing tonal distinctions in a way that affects the meaning of individual words.

In summary, Mandarin Chinese uses tones as integral parts of its phonemic structure, while
English and Slovak use pitch primarily for intonational purposes, without changing word
meanings

8.

The syllable structure of Comanche nouns and verbs, as described by Charney, demonstrates a
variety of syllable types beyond the basic structure of CV (consonant-vowel). The examples
provided illustrate several combinations of consonant and vowel patterns:

1. CV (Consonant-Vowel): This is the simplest structure, exemplified in roots like "paa"

(water).
2. CVC (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant): This structure appears in words like "papi"
(older brother).
3. CVV (Consonant-Long Vowel): Seen in "paa."
4. VCV (Vowel-Consonant-Vowel): An example is "ata" (uncle).
5. CVCV (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel): An example includes "papi."
6. VCVCV (Vowel-Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel): An example is "anikúta"
(ant).
7. CVCVCV (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel-Consonant): Seen in "wakaté?ee"
(turtle).
8. CVCVCVV (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel-Long Vowel): Such as in
"pīmotōō" (cow).

Analysis of Syllable Structure

The overall structure can be classified as multisyllabic and demonstrates a mixture of open
(CV) and closed (CVC) syllable types. The prevalence of the CV and CVC structures is
common in many languages, indicating a preference for these syllable forms.

The syllable structure in Comanche allows for complex combinations, reflecting the
language's morphological and phonological characteristics. This diversity contributes to the
richness of Comanche's phonetic inventory and offers insights into the language's syntactic
and semantic structures.

Conclusion

In summary, Comanche demonstrates a flexible syllable structure that accommodates various

forms, illustrating its phonological complexity. If you’re interested in more details about
Comanche phonology or syllable structure, you might refer to Charney's work or related
linguistic studies.

9.
the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), the vowel and consonant inventories are
categorized based on their sizes, revealing intriguing insights into the phonological diversity
of languages worldwide.

Minimal Inventory of Vowels and Consonants

• Smallest Vowel Inventory: The minimal vowel inventory consists of 2 vowels.

Languages with only two contrasting vowel qualities are relatively rare, but examples
include Yimas, a language from Papua New Guinea.
• Smallest Consonant Inventory: The smallest consonant inventory also typically
includes around 6 consonants. Examples include languages like Taa (also known as
!Xóõ), which features a very limited set of consonants.

Most Common Vowel Inventory

The most common vowel inventory in the WALS database is that of 5 vowels.
Approximately 188 languages, making up about one-third of the total sample, feature this
size of vowel inventory. Some languages with this common inventory include:

• Spanish: which is characterized by the five vowels /i, e, a, o, u/.

• Italian: similarly uses the same five vowels as in Spanish.

Language Examples

• Small Inventory (2-4 vowels): For instance, languages like Eastern

Ojibwa or Navajo have small vowel inventories typically consisting of 3 or 4 vowels.
• Average Inventory (5-6 vowels): Languages like Spanish and Italian are good
examples of those with an average inventory.
• Large Inventory (7 or more vowels): German holds the record with 14 vowel
qualities, while some varieties of English exhibit 13 vowel qualities.

Conclusion

The WALS database emphasizes how vowel inventories exhibit geographical and cultural
patterns. Languages with small inventories often appear in specific regions, such as the
Americas and Australia, whereas languages with larger inventories are more prevalent in parts
of Africa and Europ

D+e

Most Typical Consonant Inventory

The most typical consonant inventory across world languages generally includes around 20-
25 consonant phonemes. This average varies widely, but many languages fall within this
range, especially those in the Indo-European family.

Examples of Languages with Typical Consonant Inventories:

1. Spanish: Has about 24 consonants, including /p, t, k, b, d, g, f, s, m, n, l, ɾ, j, θ/, etc.

 2. Standard English: Contains around 24 consonants, including /p, t, k, b, d, g, f, v, s, z,
ʃ, ʒ, m, n, l, r, j, w/.
3. Swahili: Also has around 20 consonants, reflecting a fairly typical inventory for Bantu
languages.

These examples illustrate how consonant inventories can be relatively rich while still
maintaining commonalities across various language families.

Tone Languages

In terms of tone languages, while a significant number of the world's languages do utilize
tone, they do not constitute the majority. It is estimated that approximately 30% of the
world’s languages are tonal. Tone languages include languages such as:

• Mandarin Chinese
• Thai
• Vietnamese

These languages use pitch to distinguish meaning between words that otherwise have the
same phonetic structure.

CHAPTER 5

focuses on syntactic typology and examines the structural properties of languages,

particularly their sentence construction and grammatical organization. Here’s a detailed
overview of the key points and concepts covered in this chapter:

1. Overview of Syntactic Typology

The chapter begins with an introduction to syntactic typology, defining it as the classification
of languages based on their syntactic structures. Körtvelyessy emphasizes the significance of
understanding syntax in typological studies because it reveals how different languages
organize information and relationships between words.

2. Basic Sentence Structures

Körtvelyessy explores the basic word order in languages, typically represented by three main
patterns:

• Subject-Verb-Object (SVO): Common in languages such as English.

• Subject-Object-Verb (SOV): Seen in languages like Japanese and Turkish.
• Verb-Subject-Object (VSO): Found in languages like Classical Arabic.

The chapter discusses how these syntactic arrangements affect the overall syntax and
semantics of a language, influencing clarity and communication.

3. Modifiers and Constituents

The author analyzes the role of modifiers (e.g., adjectives and adverbs) and constituents
(phrases that act as single units) in sentence structure. Körtvelyessy illustrates how modifiers
can precede or follow the nouns they modify, leading to different syntactic environments and
affecting the meaning conveyed.

4. Grammatical Relations and Case Systems

A significant part of the chapter is dedicated to grammatical relations, focusing on how

different languages mark the relationships between verbs and their arguments (subjects,
objects). Körtvelyessy discusses case systems (nominative, accusative, dative, etc.) and how
they function in languages like Latin and Russian to express grammatical relations without
relying solely on word order.

5. Language Families and Syntactic Features

The chapter delves into the connection between syntactic features and language families.
Körtvelyessy provides examples of how related languages often share certain syntactic
characteristics, contributing to the understanding of language evolution and historical
linguistics.

6. Areal Linguistics

Körtvelyessy touches on areal linguistics, explaining how geographical proximity can

influence syntax. She illustrates this with examples from language contact situations where
syntactic features transfer between neighboring languages, creating phenomena like syntactic
convergence.

7. Functional Typology

The chapter concludes with a discussion of functional typology, which considers the role of
syntax in communication and how different languages prioritize different aspects of
information (e.g., focus, topic, and aspect). Körtvelyessy argues that understanding functional
syntax is essential for a comprehensive view of linguistic diversity.

Conclusion

Chapter 5 of Körtvelyessy's work provides a comprehensive analysis of syntactic typology,

highlighting the diversity of syntactic structures across languages and their implications for
understanding linguistic relationships and cultural differences. The integration of syntactic
analysis with other typological perspectives, such as areal linguistics and functional typology,
enriches the study of language and reveals the complexities involved in human
communication.

Continuing from the previous summary, here are additional key elements and insights from
Chapter 5 of Livia Körtvelyessy’s "Essentials of Language Typology" regarding syntactic
typology:

14. Case Systems and Their Role in Syntax

Körtvelyessy explores how different languages utilize case systems to indicate grammatical
relationships within sentences. She explains the distinction between nominative-accusative
and ergative-absolutive systems, highlighting how these frameworks impact sentence
structure. For instance, in languages with a rich case system, the syntactic structure may be
more flexible due to clear markers indicating the roles of nouns in relation to verbs.

15. Syntactic Alignment

This section discusses the concept of syntactic alignment, which refers to how different
languages treat subjects and objects in relation to verbs. Körtvelyessy outlines various
alignment strategies, including nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, and active-stative
alignments. She emphasizes how these systems influence not just syntax but also semantics
and discourse.

16. Areal Linguistics

Körtvelyessy touches on the influence of areal linguistics on syntactic structures, discussing

how languages in close geographical proximity may share syntactic features due to contact
and convergence. This highlights the importance of sociolinguistic factors in shaping
syntactic typology and emphasizes the dynamic nature of language.

17. Syntactic Universals and Typological Predictions

The chapter also delves into the search for syntactic universals, features that are common
across many languages. Körtvelyessy discusses how typological research aims to identify
patterns that might predict syntactic behavior in languages. This includes exploring how
languages with similar typological characteristics may exhibit predictable syntactic behaviors.

18. The Interaction of Syntax with Other Linguistic Levels

Körtvelyessy discusses the interplay between syntax and other linguistic levels, such as
phonology and morphology. She highlights how syntactic structures can influence and be
influenced by phonological rules, illustrating the interconnectedness of linguistic systems.
This comprehensive approach allows for a better understanding of how syntax operates within
the broader framework of language.

19. Case Studies

To provide practical illustrations of the concepts discussed, Körtvelyessy incorporates case

studies of specific languages. These examples demonstrate the application of theoretical
principles in real-world linguistic contexts. By examining languages from different families,
she illustrates the diversity of syntactic structures and the factors that shape them.

Tasks:

1.

The metaphors used by Friedrich Schlegel and his brother August provide a vivid
representation of two distinct morphological language types that they identified.

Metaphors Explained

1. “Heap of atoms which every wind of chance scatters or sweeps together”

 o This metaphor describes a language type that is highly isolating or analytic,
often characterized by a lack of inflection. In such languages, words function
independently and have fixed meanings, similar to atoms that can be scattered
or combined without changing their fundamental nature. The analogy suggests
a language where syntax and meaning are achieved through word order and
auxiliary elements rather than morphological changes. This description aligns
with languages like Chinese or Vietnamese, where words are typically single
morphemes and grammatical relationships are expressed through position
rather than inflection.
2. “All their words are roots, but sterile roots which produce neither plants nor
trees”
o This metaphor reflects a language type that is agglutinative or possibly
fusional. In these languages, roots serve as the base for forming words but do
not stand alone as complete words. The idea of “sterile roots” suggests that
while roots exist, they do not independently convey meaning or produce
complex structures (like “plants” or “trees”). This can be likened to languages
such as Turkish or Finnish, where morphemes are added to roots to convey
tense, mood, and other grammatical features, creating long and complex words
through agglutination.

Language Types Described

• First Type (Analytic or Isolating Languages): The first metaphor describes

languages that rely heavily on word order and auxiliary words rather than
morphological markers. Languages classified under this type include Mandarin
Chinese and English.
• Second Type (Agglutinative or Fusional Languages): The second metaphor
characterizes languages that use roots that require additional morphological elements
to convey full meaning. This includes agglutinative languages, like Turkish, where
multiple affixes can be attached to a root word.

Conclusion

Through these metaphors, the Schlegel brothers highlight the fundamental differences in how
languages can be structured morphologically. Their observations laid the groundwork for
modern morphological typology, helping to categorize languages based on their
morphological properties and the role of roots and affixes in word formation.

2.

William Croft's interpretation of language types, based on the Schlegel brothers' work,
contrasts two distinct approaches to morphological structure in languages. Here's how to
match the descriptions to language types and identify which part refers to the "heap of atoms"
metaphor.

Matching Descriptions to Language Types

1. "The simple combination of morphemes"

o This part of the description refers to isolating or analytic languages. In such
languages, words are typically formed by combining individual morphemes
 without altering their form, much like how a "heap of atoms" suggests a
collection of discrete elements that do not change when combined.
2. "The phonological alternation of morphemes in combination"
o This refers to agglutinative or fusional languages. In these languages, the
morphology of words can change through processes like inflection or
derivation, which often involves phonological alterations as morphemes are
combined into more complex structures.

Reference to "Heap of Atoms"

The phrase “the simple combination of morphemes” corresponds to the “heap of

atoms” metaphor by Friedrich Schlegel. It emphasizes how in analytic languages, morphemes
exist as independent units, combining freely without undergoing substantial changes, similar
to how atoms can exist separately but can also be grouped together without altering their
individual properties.

Conclusion

In summary, Croft's descriptions align with the distinctions established by the Schlegel
brothers, where the first part refers to analytic languages reflecting a "heap of atoms," and the
second part relates to more complex agglutinative or fusional languages. This classification
illustrates the fundamental differences in how various languages utilize morphemes in
structure and meaning.

For further insights into this topic, you can explore Croft's work on language typology, as it
elaborates on these distinctions in greater detail.

3.

August von Schlegel's classification of languages into three types—affixal, inflectional, and
those with no structure—provides a framework for understanding how languages utilize
morphology to convey meaning. Here’s a detailed explanation of these concepts:

1. Affixal Languages

Affixal languages primarily use affixes (prefixes, suffixes, infixes, etc.) to modify the
meanings of root words or to indicate grammatical relationships. In these languages, the base
forms of words (roots) remain relatively stable, while the addition of affixes provides
necessary grammatical or semantic information.

• Characteristics:
o Use of Affixes: Affixal languages extensively utilize morphemes that attach to
roots to create new meanings or grammatical forms.
o Examples: Languages like Turkish and Swahili are often cited as examples.
For instance, in Turkish, the root "ev" (house) can be modified to "evler"
(houses) with the addition of the plural suffix -ler.

2. Inflectional Languages
Inflectional languages employ a more complex system of inflection, where words change
form to express different grammatical categories, such as tense, case, mood, or number.
Unlike affixal languages, inflectional languages may change the root form of a word itself to
convey these meanings.

• Characteristics:
o Phonological Changes: Inflection can involve significant changes to the word
structure, including vowel and consonant alternations.
o Examples: Latin and Russian are key examples of inflectional languages. For
instance, in Latin, the noun "puella" (girl) can take various forms like "puellae"
(of the girl) or "puellam" (the girl, accusative case), indicating its grammatical
role in a sentence.

3. Languages Without Inflectional Morphology

Languages classified as having no structure typically lack a formal system of inflection or

morphological changes. In these languages, grammatical relationships are often expressed
through word order, context, or auxiliary words rather than morphological changes.

• Characteristics:
o Analytic Nature: These languages often rely on a more analytic approach to
syntax, meaning that they use separate words rather than altering the form of
words to convey grammatical relationships.
o Examples: Chinese and Vietnamese exemplify this type. In Chinese, the word
for "book" (书, shū) does not change form to indicate plurality or tense;
instead, context or additional words indicate these relationships.

Summary

In summary, August von Schlegel's typology highlights three distinct language structures
based on their morphological systems:

• Affixal languages utilize affixes to create new word forms.

• Inflectional languages change the forms of words significantly to indicate
grammatical relations.
• Languages without structure rely on word order and context, showing little to no
morphological alteration.

These classifications contribute to our understanding of linguistic diversity and how different
languages approach grammatical structure. For further exploration, you might find more
detailed discussions in works on language typology and morphology, such as those by
Greenberg or Croft.

4.

Wilhelm von Humboldt classified languages into three main types: flectional, isolating,
and incorporative. Here is an explanation of each type, using the characteristics provided:

1. Flectional Languages (Inflectional)

 • Relations between words in a sentence are expressed by affixes.

Flectional (or inflectional) languages use affixes such as prefixes, suffixes, or infixes
to convey grammatical relationships between words in a sentence. This includes
changes to indicate tense, number, gender, case, etc. The root of the word typically
changes as well through inflection.

o Example: In languages like Latin, Russian, and German, words are inflected
for case, tense, or gender. For instance, in Latin, the noun "puella" (girl) can
become "puellae" (of the girl) in the genitive case.

2. Isolating Languages

• Lack of inflection.

Isolating languages have little to no inflection or morphological changes. Instead,

grammatical relationships are expressed through word order and separate auxiliary
words rather than affixes or changes in the word form. Words in these languages
remain unchanged, regardless of their grammatical role in a sentence.

o Example: Mandarin Chinese is a classic example of an isolating language.

The word "mǎ" (horse) remains the same in different contexts, and meanings
such as tense or number are indicated by other words in the sentence, not by
changing the form of "mǎ."

3. Incorporative Languages

• The sentence is reduced to a noun form; verb and noun form one word.

In incorporative (or polysynthetic) languages, sentences are often condensed into a

single complex word. Verbs and nouns are incorporated together to form compound
words, making the sentence more compact. These languages express relationships
between words by combining them into one larger word, typically including both
subjects and objects into a verb complex.

o Example: Many Native American languages, such as Inuktitut or Mohawk,

exhibit this incorporative structure. In such languages, a single word might
express what would require a full sentence in English. For example, in
Inuktitut, "qannipalaak" means "a light snowstorm," combining noun and verb
components into one word.

Summary:

• Flectional languages rely heavily on morphological changes (affixes) to express

grammatical relationships.
• Isolating languages avoid inflection, instead using word order and auxiliary words to
convey meaning.
• Incorporative languages merge nouns, verbs, and other elements into a single word,
reducing the sentence structure to an integrated word form.
These categories reflect different strategies languages use to organize and express meaning
through their structure.

5.

August Schleicher's typology of languages included isolating, agglutinating,

and inflectional types, each characterized by how they use affixes to convey grammatical
meaning. Here's an explanation of each type, using the characteristics provided:

1. Isolating Languages

• Languages without affixes.

In isolating languages, words are generally invariable and there are no affixes (prefixes,
suffixes, or infixes) to denote grammatical relations. Instead, the relationships between words
are indicated by word order and auxiliary words. This lack of inflection or affixes gives
isolating languages their "bare" appearance.

• Example: Mandarin Chinese is a well-known isolating language. Grammatical

functions like tense or plurality are expressed not through word changes, but by using
separate words or particles. For instance, "tā" means "he" or "she," and remains
unchanged regardless of its grammatical role.

2. Agglutinating Languages

• Affixes denote single grammatical categories, are joined together one after
another with little phonological alternation.

Agglutinating languages use affixes to mark grammatical categories (such as tense, case,
number, etc.), but the key characteristic is that each affix represents a single grammatical
category and they are added in a linear fashion. The root of the word generally remains
unchanged, and there is little or no phonological alteration when affixes are combined. Each
affix can be clearly separated from others.

• Example: Turkish is a classic example of an agglutinating language. The word

"evlerinizden" means "from your houses," where "ev" is the root meaning "house,"
and multiple affixes (-ler, -iniz, -den) are added sequentially to indicate plural,
possessive, and ablative case, respectively.

3. Inflectional (or Fusional) Languages

• Languages that use affixes, often fuse grammatical categories into one affix, and
this fusion may be accompanied by phonological alternations.

Inflectional (or fusional) languages differ from agglutinating languages in that single
affixes can carry multiple grammatical meanings at once. Instead of separate affixes
for tense, number, or case, a single affix may express all of these categories
simultaneously. Additionally, the root word and the affixes often
undergo phonological changes, meaning the sound structure of the word may change
as grammatical markers are added.
 o Example: Latin and Russian are examples of inflectional languages. In Latin,
for instance, "amābō" (I will love) fuses the root "am-" (love) with the
inflectional affix "-bō," which simultaneously expresses first-person, singular,
and future tense. The word structure changes, and the root itself may also shift
based on the tense or case.

Summary of Schleicher's Typology:

• Isolating: Words have no affixes and grammatical meaning is expressed through word
order or separate words (e.g., Chinese).
• Agglutinating: Separate affixes each denote one grammatical category, and they are
joined in sequence with minimal sound changes (e.g., Turkish).
• Inflectional: Affixes fuse multiple grammatical meanings together and often cause
changes to the root and the overall word structure (e.g., Latin, Russian).

This typology emphasizes different strategies languages use to convey grammatical

relationships, ranging from the lack of affixes in isolating languages to complex fusions in
inflectional languages.

6.

In the paragraphs from Edward Sapir’s Language, he argues that language typology should
be based on structure rather than vocabulary. He emphasizes the concept of a language’s
"plan" or "genius," which is its overarching structure—something more fundamental and
pervasive than individual features or the words it contains. Sapir contrasts this with
vocabulary, which he considers less significant for typology because the size or content of a
language's vocabulary can easily change over time, depending on cultural needs.

Sapir illustrates his point by describing how languages differ in their structural organization
rather than just in their lexicon. He mentions how moving from Latin to Russian, English, and
Chinese feels like entering different linguistic "landscapes," with Chinese, for instance,
feeling entirely foreign compared to the Indo-European languages. This metaphor underscores
his view that the form and structure of a language (e.g., its syntax, morphology, and
phonological systems) is what primarily defines its type, not the particular words or their
meanings.

In his critique of focusing on vocabulary, Sapir argues that all languages are capable of
expanding their vocabulary to meet new communicative needs, making vocabulary a less
stable feature for defining language types. Therefore, his view of typology stresses the
importance of structural features such as the use of synthesis, the handling of
grammatical relations, and morphological processes over a mere count of lexical items.

Thus, Sapir's argument leans heavily toward structural typology, which classifies languages
based on how they organize and convey grammatical information rather than on the size or
nature of their lexicon. This approach aligns with his belief that the essence of a language lies
in its grammatical architecture rather than in the words it uses.

7.
Based on the examples provided, the language type can be identified as analytic with some
degree of agglutination.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. "I will come at noon."

This sentence illustrates analytic language tendencies. English uses auxiliary
verbs like "will" to express future tense rather than using inflections or changes within
a single verb (like "comes" or "coming"). English primarily conveys meaning through
word order and separate grammatical particles (like prepositions and auxiliaries) rather
than affixes attached to words.
2. "The nicest weekend I have ever had was in late September two years ago."
This sentence also demonstrates the analytic nature of English. The structure is based
on word order rather than inflectional endings. Grammatical relationships (tense,
possession, and comparison) are expressed through auxiliary verbs ("have ever had"),
separate adjectives, and syntactic structures (e.g., word order), not through extensive
use of affixes or morpheme combination.
3. "anti-dis-establish-ment-arian-ism"
This example, however, represents agglutination, where a base word ("establish")
accumulates multiple prefixes ("anti-", "dis-") and suffixes ("-ment", "-arian", "-ism")
to add layers of meaning. This characteristic indicates that English has
some synthetic tendencies in creating complex words by combining morphemes, but
this is relatively limited compared to more highly agglutinative languages like
Turkish.

What type of language is English?

English is considered primarily an analytic language. In analytic languages, grammatical

relations are conveyed mostly through word order and helper words (like prepositions and
auxiliary verbs), rather than inflectional endings.

At the same time, English displays some synthetic tendencies,

particularly agglutinative aspects, as seen in the formation of complex words with multiple
morphemes (e.g., in scientific, political, or technical terms like "anti-
disestablishmentarianism"). However, this is relatively rare and does not dominate English
structure.

In summary, English is mainly analytic, but with limited synthetic elements, particularly in
word formation

8.

9.

Language Type 1: Agglutinative

• Words consist of stems with affixes added one after another.

• Every morpheme has only one meaning, and there is a one-to-one relationship
between form and meaning.
• Vowel harmony is typical, and auxiliaries are rarely used.
 • Lack of grammatical synonymy and homonymy, making the grammar simple and
regular.
• This description fits agglutinative languages like Turkish, Finnish, or Hungarian,
where morphemes are added in a linear way with little fusion of grammatical
categories.

Language Type 2: Analytic

• Words mostly consist of single morphemes (roots), and sentences are built by
combining these free morphemes.
• Few inflectional morphemes and little use of affixes.
• Grammatical relations are expressed through word order and function words, rather
than inflection.
• This description fits analytic languages like Mandarin Chinese or Vietnamese,
where word order and context play a critical role, and inflections are minimal.

Language Type 3: Polysynthetic

• Words are made up of long strings of stems and affixes that often correspond to entire
sentences in languages like Inuktitut or Mohawk.
• Noun incorporation is a key feature, which leads to the creation of complex verbs.
• This language type expresses many grammatical categories and meanings in a single
word.

Language Type 4: Introflexive (or Non-concatenative)

• Internal changes (often within the root) replace external inflections.

• A consonantal skeleton (typically three consonants) is combined with inserted vowels
to form different meanings.
• This description fits Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, where vowel
changes within the root convey different grammatical meanings (e.g., "k-t-b" can form
"kataba" for "he wrote" or "kutub" for "books").

Language Type 5: Inflectional

• Words consist of stems and affixes, but affixes often mark several grammatical
categories simultaneously (cumulation).
• One morpheme can represent multiple morphological functions (syncretism).
• This type fits inflectional languages like Latin, Russian, or Spanish, where affixes
are fused, and grammatical categories such as tense, number, and gender are often
expressed together.

English Typology:

• English is considered analytic in many aspects because it relies heavily on word order
and function words, but it also has inflectional elements, such as the plural "-s" or past
tense "-ed" suffixes. It uses auxiliaries for tense, mood, and aspect, showing that it
doesn’t fit neatly into one category, making it a mixed or hybrid type.
 TEST

1. Morphological Typology

Question: Which of the following languages is typically considered an agglutinative

language?

A) English
B) Mandarin
C) Turkish
D) French

Answer: C) Turkish
Explanation: Turkish is an agglutinative language because it uses clearly separable
morphemes, each representing a single grammatical function (such as tense, number, or case).

2. Syntactic Typology

Question: What word order does a language typically have if it uses postpositions instead of
prepositions?

A) SVO
B) SOV
C) VSO
D) OVS

Answer: B) SOV
Explanation: According to typological patterns (e.g., Greenberg’s universals), languages
with postpositions (e.g., Japanese) tend to have SOV word order, where the object comes
before the verb.

3. Phonological Typology

Question: In a tonal language, what does a change in pitch typically signify?

A) Emphasis on certain words

B) Changes in grammatical tense
C) Different meanings of words
D) Subject-object agreement

Answer: C) Different meanings of words

Explanation: In tonal languages (like Mandarin), changing the pitch of a syllable alters its
meaning. For example, the word "ma" in Mandarin can mean mother, horse, or scold,
depending on the tone.

4. Grammatical Relations and Case Marking

Question: If a language marks the subject of intransitive verbs the same way it marks the
object of transitive verbs, what alignment system does it have?

A) Nominative-Accusative
B) Ergative-Absolutive
C) Tripartite
D) Split-Ergative

Answer: B) Ergative-Absolutive
Explanation: In an ergative-absolutive system, the subject of intransitive verbs (S) is treated
like the object of transitive verbs (O), while the subject of transitive verbs (A) is marked
differently.

5. Word Order Universals

Question: Which of the following is a correct implicational universal based on Greenberg’s

findings?

A) If a language has postpositions, it is likely to have VSO word order.

B) If a language has SOV word order, it is likely to have postpositions.
C) If a language has prepositions, it is likely to have SOV word order.
D) If a language has OVS word order, it is likely to have prepositions.

Answer: B) If a language has SOV word order, it is likely to have postpositions.

Explanation: Greenberg’s Universal 4 states that languages with SOV word order tend to
have postpositions rather than prepositions. Japanese, for example, is an SOV language and
uses postpositions.

6. Language Classification

Question: Which of the following best describes a fusional language?

A) A language that uses word order to express grammatical relations.

B) A language in which one affix may express several grammatical categories.
C) A language with many independent, unbound morphemes.
D) A language with very few inflectional morphemes.

Answer: B) A language in which one affix may express several grammatical categories.
Explanation: Fusional languages (e.g., Spanish or Latin) use affixes where one morpheme
may encode multiple grammatical meanings, like tense, number, and gender in one suffix

7. Case Systems Question: In a language with split ergativity, which of the following
might trigger a shift between nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive alignment?

A) Word order
B) Tense or aspect
C) The use of prepositions or postpositions
D) The presence of articles

Answer: B) Tense or aspect

Explanation: Split-ergative languages may use ergative-absolutive alignment in certain
tenses (e.g., past tense) but switch to nominative-accusative alignment in others (e.g.,
present tense). Hindi is an example of a language that does this.

8. Rare Typological Features

Question: Which of the following features is typical of polysynthetic languages?

A) Use of inflectional morphemes to mark gender and number

B) Long words that represent entire sentences
C) High degree of noun incorporation
D) Lack of case marking

Answer: B) Long words that represent entire sentences

Explanation: Polysynthetic languages (e.g., Inuktitut) tend to create long, complex
words that can function as entire sentences in English due to extensive use of morphemes to
express multiple meanings.

9. Typological Classification

Question: Which of the following languages is a typical example of a tonal language?

A) Japanese
B) Swahili
C) Mandarin Chinese
D) Russian
Answer: C) Mandarin Chinese
Explanation: Mandarin Chinese is a tonal language, meaning that changes in pitch can alter
the meaning of a word.

10. Typological Universals

Question: Which of the following describes markedness in language typology?

A) The tendency for certain grammatical features to be more common than others.
B) A system where subjects are marked differently from objects.
C) The distinction between more natural or unmarked forms and more complex or marked
forms.
D) A strategy where some phonemes are more frequent than others in word formation.

Answer: C) The distinction between more natural or unmarked forms and more
complex or marked forms.
Explanation: Markedness refers to the phenomenon where certain grammatical forms (e.g.,
singular vs. plural) are more basic or "unmarked," while others (e.g., plural) are considered
"marked" and more complex.

11. Serial Verb Constructions

Question: What is a serial verb construction?

A) Two verbs that are conjugated in sequence to indicate tense.

B) A construction where multiple verbs are used together to describe a single event.
C) A sequence of verbs that follow the same subject.
D) A construction where verbs and nouns are fused together.

Answer: B) A construction where multiple verbs are used together to describe a single
event.
Explanation: Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are common in languages like Yoruba or
Thai, where two or more verbs are used in sequence to describe a single action or event
without conjunctions.

12. Greenberg's Universal 18

Question: According to Greenberg’s Universal 18, if a language has gender distinctions in

nouns, what else would you expect?

A) Gender distinctions in adjectives

B) No distinction in pronouns
C) Gender distinctions in pronouns
D) Lack of gender distinctions in verbs
Answer: C) Gender distinctions in pronouns
Explanation: Greenberg’s Universal 18 states that if a language has gender distinctions in
nouns, it will also tend to have gender distinctions in pronouns.

TRICKY QUESTIONS:

Yes, language typology tests can sometimes include questions that challenge your
understanding of core concepts by mixing theoretical knowledge with practical applications.
Here are some tricky types of questions that might come up, along with tips on how to
approach them:

1. Mixed-Type Morphological Classification

A common tricky question may ask you to classify a language or a specific word formation
process that doesn’t fit neatly into one of the primary morphological types (isolating,
agglutinative, fusional, polysynthetic).

Example Question:

"Consider the following made-up word from an imaginary language: katenixes (meaning
'They will eat'). The word contains the following morphemes: 'kat-' (root, 'eat'), '-e-' (future
tense), '-nix-' (plural subject), '-es' (indicative mood). What morphological type does this
language represent, and why?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: This word seems to have morphemes that each carry individual
grammatical meanings (tense, number, mood). The sequential use of morphemes
indicates agglutinative typology. If the morphemes were fused (e.g., one morpheme
expressing both tense and number), it would lean toward fusional.
• Trick: Watch for examples that don’t perfectly fit one category but exhibit
characteristics of two (like semi-fusional languages). Always justify your reasoning
based on the specific morpheme behavior.

2. Implicational Universals

You might be asked about implicational universals and how they apply to unseen data,
testing both your understanding of the concept and your ability to apply it.

Example Question:

"If a language has prepositions, what word order would you expect it to have based on
implicational universals? Why?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: According to Greenberg’s universals, languages with prepositions (as

opposed to postpositions) tend to have SVO or VSO word orders. This is because
prepositions are often linked to head-initial constructions, which correlate with these
 word orders. Be prepared to explain how word order and other syntactic features
relate.
• Trick: They might present an exception (like a language with prepositions but SOV
word order). In that case, note the exception and mention that statistical universals
allow for exceptions but still reflect broad tendencies.

3. Identifying Rare Typological Patterns

You may be given examples of rare patterns in world languages and asked to classify or
explain them.

Example Question:

"In the following language, the typical word order is OSV. Is this a common word order?
What other features might you expect this language to have?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: OSV is a very rare word order. Since word order tends to correlate with
other syntactic features, you might predict that this language uses postpositions rather
than prepositions (since it is head-final). It may also feature complex case marking to
identify subjects and objects more clearly.
• Trick: Rare patterns might trick you into second-guessing yourself. Always remember
that typology allows for extreme diversity, but unusual patterns often come with
compensatory features like case marking or agreement systems.

4. Hybrid Systems in Grammatical Relations

A question might test your understanding of alignment systems (nominative-accusative vs.

ergative-absolutive) but provide a language that uses a split system, where different parts of
the grammar follow different alignments.

Example Question:

"Language X marks its intransitive subjects (S) the same as transitive objects (O) in present
tense but uses a nominative-accusative system in the past tense. What type of alignment
system does this language have?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: This language has a split-ergative system. Many split-ergative

languages use different alignment strategies based on tense, aspect, or even person and
number. In this case, the language shows ergative-absolutivealignment in the present
tense and nominative-accusative alignment in the past tense.
• Trick: These questions mix alignments based on different contexts (e.g., tense, aspect,
or person), so make sure to carefully consider the conditions (e.g., tense) before
deciding the alignment system.

5. Uncommon Phonological Features

You might be asked about rare or typologically unusual phonological traits, such as unusual
consonant clusters, vowel inventories, or types of tones.

Example Question:

"Language Y has only three vowels but 30 consonants, including ejectives and implosives.
What typological conclusions can you draw from this? How might this affect syllable
structure?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: A language with a small vowel inventory and a large consonant

inventory is more likely to have complex consonant clusters in its syllables. The
presence of ejectives and implosives suggests that the language has a rich consonant
system with complex articulation, likely allowing combinations of sounds that might
not occur in languages with simpler phonologies.
• Trick: Phonological questions often hinge on your ability to infer syllable
structure and phonotactic constraints(i.e., what kinds of sounds can go together)
based on the inventory of sounds.

6. Applying Case Marking Systems to New Data

You could be given a sentence in an unfamiliar language and asked to determine the case
marking system based on the sentence structure.

Example Question:

"Consider the following sentences in a fictional language:

1. Lako-n tamu-te simon-ne (The boy hit the girl).

2. Simon-ne lota (The girl is running). Is this language nominative-accusative or
ergative-absolutive? Justify your answer."

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: In sentence 1, "Lako-n" (boy) is the subject of a transitive verb, and

"tamu-te" (girl) is the object. In sentence 2, "simon-ne" (girl) is the subject of an
intransitive verb. If the intransitive subject ("simon-ne") is marked the same way as
the transitive object ("tamu-te"), the language is ergative-absolutive.
• Trick: Case marking questions can be tricky if you assume nominative-accusative
without checking how subjects and objects are marked in both transitive and
intransitive constructions.

7. Negative Testing of Universals

A question might ask about exceptions to universals or challenge you to explain why a certain
universal doesn’t hold in a particular language.

Example Question:
"Greenberg’s Universal 18 states that ‘If a language has gender distinctions in nouns, it has
gender distinctions in pronouns.’ Language Z has gender distinctions in pronouns but not in
nouns. How do you explain this exception?"

Answer Strategy:

• Explanation: Greenberg's universal is implicational, meaning it predicts what will

happen in most languages but allows for exceptions. In this case, you might explain
that while gender distinctions in nouns are more common, this language retains gender
in pronouns for reasons that might be historical or sociolinguistic. The universal is
statistical, so exceptions are not unexpected.
• Trick: This type of question asks you to think critically about universals and
remember that statistical universals allow for exceptions. The key is to avoid rigid
thinking and justify why an exception might occur.

General Tips for Tricky Questions:

1. Apply Concepts, Don’t Just Memorize: Typology questions often ask for
application to new examples, so understanding the underlying principles (like
morpheme types, alignment systems, or phonotactics) is more important than
memorizing definitions.
2. Justify Your Answers: Always explain why you are classifying something a certain
way. Whether it's a morphological system or word order, back up your answer with
reasoning based on the data provided.
3. Consider Language Diversity: Typology recognizes that there is extreme
diversity in languages, so always keep in mind that exceptions or rare patterns are
common. Don't be thrown off by a language that doesn't fit the typical mold.

By preparing for these tricky types of questions, you'll be ready for more challenging aspects
of your language typology test. Let me know if you need help with more examples or
concepts!

Key Terms and Concepts in Language Typology

1. Morphological Typology

• Isolating language: A language where words typically consist of a single morpheme

(e.g., Mandarin Chinese).
• Agglutinative language: A language where morphemes are joined together clearly,
each representing a distinct grammatical meaning (e.g., Turkish).
• Fusional language: A language where a single affix encodes multiple grammatical
meanings (e.g., Spanish).
• Polysynthetic language: A language where complex words, often whole sentences in
English, are made up of many morphemes (e.g., Inuktitut).
• Inflection: A morphological process that modifies a word to express grammatical
information such as tense, number, or case (e.g., English plural "-s").
 • Derivation: A morphological process that changes the meaning or part of speech of a
word (e.g., "happiness" from "happy").
• Morpheme: The smallest grammatical unit in a language, either free (can stand alone)
or bound (must be attached to another morpheme).

2. Syntactic Typology

• Subject-Verb-Object (SVO): A common word order, as in "The cat ate the fish"
(English).
• Subject-Object-Verb (SOV): A word order where the verb comes last, as in "The cat
the fish ate" (Japanese).
• Verb-Subject-Object (VSO): A word order with the verb first, as in "Ate the cat the
fish" (Classical Arabic).
• Word order universals: Greenberg’s implicational universals that predict word order
patterns across languages.
• Head-initial: A structure where the head (e.g., the verb in a sentence, the preposition
in a prepositional phrase) comes before its dependents (e.g., complements, objects).
• Head-final: A structure where the head follows its dependents (e.g., Japanese).

3. Phonological Typology

• Tonal language: A language where pitch or tone changes meaning (e.g., Mandarin,
with its four tones).
• Non-tonal language: A language that does not use tone to distinguish meaning (e.g.,
English).
• Phoneme: The smallest unit of sound in a language that can distinguish meaning.
• Phonotactics: The rules governing permissible combinations of sounds in a language.
• Vowel harmony: A phonological process where vowels within a word must share
certain features, common in languages like Turkish or Finnish.
• Consonant cluster: A group of consonants with no intervening vowels, as in the word
"spring" (English).

4. Grammatical Relations and Alignment Systems

• Nominative-Accusative Alignment: A system where the subject of both transitive

and intransitive verbs is treated the same (nominative), while the object of transitive
verbs is marked differently (accusative). (e.g., Latin).
• Ergative-Absolutive Alignment: A system where the subject of an intransitive verb is
treated like the object of a transitive verb (absolutive), and the subject of a transitive
verb is marked differently (ergative). (e.g., Basque).
• Split ergativity: A system where a language uses both nominative-accusative and
ergative-absolutive alignment, depending on tense, aspect, or other factors (e.g.,
Hindi).
• Case marking: Morphological marking on nouns to indicate their grammatical
function (subject, object, etc.).

5. Typological Universals
 • Greenberg’s Universals: A set of linguistic universals proposed by Joseph Greenberg
in 1963. These are patterns that occur across languages, such as Universal 2: “If a
language has prepositions, it will tend to have SVO order.”
• Markedness: A typological concept referring to how "normal" or "unmarked" features
are compared to their "marked" counterparts. For instance, singular is unmarked,
while plural is marked.
• Implicational universals: Universals that predict if a language has one feature, it will
likely have another feature. For example, "If a language has verb-object word order, it
will probably have prepositions."

Important Linguists and Scholars in Typology

1. Joseph Greenberg (1915–2001)

• Known for proposing Greenberg's Universals, which identify recurring patterns

across world languages. He worked extensively on linguistic universals and language
classification, influencing the field of language typology significantly.

2. Edward Sapir (1884–1939)

• A foundational figure in the study of linguistic typology and phonological systems.

Sapir worked on the idea that language structure influences thought (known for the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). His work covered typology across Native American
languages.

3. Roman Jakobson (1896–1982)

• Known for his work on markedness theory and the typology of phonological
systems, Jakobson contributed to understanding universals in sound systems.

4. Leonard Bloomfield (1887–1949)

• Although primarily associated with structural linguistics, Bloomfield laid foundational

ideas about morphologyand the classification of languages by their word structure,
contributing to early typological ideas.

5. Johanna Nichols

• A contemporary typologist whose work focuses on linguistic diversity and historical

linguistics. Nichols has contributed significantly to understanding cross-linguistic
variation and typological classification of languages.

6. William Croft

• Known for contributions to Construction Grammar and typological theory, Croft

has advanced the understanding of grammatical relations and word order in a
typological framework.
Additional Terms and Concepts

1. Alignment Systems

• Tripartite Alignment: A system that marks the subject of intransitive verbs (S), the
subject of transitive verbs (A), and the object of transitive verbs (O) all differently.
This system is rare but found in some languages like Nez Perce.

2. Morphosyntactic Alignment

• Active-Stative Alignment: A system where the subject of an intransitive verb can be

marked like a subject (S) or an object (O), depending on the semantics of the verb
(e.g., whether it is active or stative).

3. Constituent Order

• Free Word Order: Some languages, like Russian or Latin, allow relatively free word
order, relying on case marking to distinguish between subject and object.

4. Agreement Systems

• Verb-Subject Agreement: In languages with verb-subject agreement, the verb

changes form to reflect the grammatical person, number, or gender of the subject (e.g.,
Spanish).

5. Language Typology Classification

• Holistic Typology: A classification system that considers multiple aspects of language

structure simultaneously (phonology, morphology, syntax, etc.).
• Feature-based Typology: A typological approach that classifies languages based on
individual features, like word order or case marking.

6. Rare Patterns

• Click Languages: Languages that use click consonants, primarily found in southern
Africa (e.g., Khoisan languages).
• Serial Verb Constructions: A grammatical pattern where two or more verbs are used
together to describe a single event, common in many West African and Southeast
Asian languages.

Test Tip:

You might be asked to match terms to definitions or explain a key linguist’s contribution to
the field. Understanding the key terms in context, and how different languages provide
examples of these terms, will be crucial for your success on the test. Be prepared for both
theoretical questions (like defining terms) and applied questions (like analyzing data from
different languages).

Chapter 1: Introduction to Language Typology

Task 1: Classify the following languages as isolating, agglutinative, fusional, or

polysynthetic based on their word structure.

• Example languages: Mandarin Chinese, Turkish, Spanish, Inuktitut.

Answer and Explanation:

• Mandarin Chinese: Isolating. Mandarin typically uses very few affixes and relies
heavily on word order to convey meaning. Words are often single morphemes, making
it a clear example of an isolating language.
• Turkish: Agglutinative. Turkish uses a sequence of affixes attached to a base word,
each representing a single grammatical category (e.g., plural, possession). The
morphemes are "glued" together in a linear, transparent way.
• Spanish: Fusional. Spanish verbs, for example, are marked for tense, mood, aspect,
number, and person all within the same morpheme (e.g., "hablo" = I speak, 1st person
singular). This bundling of grammatical information into single morphemes is
characteristic of fusional languages.
• Inuktitut: Polysynthetic. Inuktitut is famous for its highly complex words, where
what might be a full sentence in English is expressed in a single word. For example,
affixes carry multiple bits of information like tense, number, and modality, leading to
very long and syntactically complex words.

Chapter 2: Morphological Typology

Task 2: Identify the morphemes in the following words and classify them as free or
bound morphemes, as well as whether the morphological process is inflection or
derivation.

• Example words: "happiness," "dogs," "unbelievable," "runned" (non-standard past

tense).

Answer and Explanation:

• Happiness:
o Morphemes: "happy" (free morpheme, base) + "-ness" (bound morpheme,
derivational suffix).
o Process: Derivation. The suffix "-ness" turns the adjective "happy" into a
noun, changing its word class.
• Dogs:
o Morphemes: "dog" (free morpheme, base) + "-s" (bound morpheme,
inflectional suffix).
 o Process: Inflection. The "-s" indicates plural without changing the word’s class
or meaning.
• Unbelievable:
o Morphemes: "un-" (bound morpheme, prefix) + "believe" (free morpheme,
base) + "-able" (bound morpheme, suffix).
o Process: Derivation. The affixes modify the meaning of the base word, turning
"believe" (a verb) into "unbelievable" (an adjective).
• Runned:
o Morphemes: "run" (free morpheme, base) + "-ed" (bound morpheme,
inflectional suffix).
o Process: Inflection. Even though "runned" is a non-standard form, the "-ed" is
an inflectional morpheme marking past tense.

Insight:

Understanding whether a process is inflectional (which modifies a word’s grammatical

category but not its meaning or word class) or derivational (which often changes the word’s
class or meaning) is key for morphology tasks.

Chapter 3: Syntactic Typology

Task 3: Determine the word order of the following sentences in different languages.
Identify the position of subject (S), object (O), and verb (V).

• Example sentences:
o Japanese: Taroo-ga ringo-o tabemasu. ("Taro eats an apple.")
o English: She gave him the book.
o Arabic: Akala al-walad at-tuffaha. ("The boy ate the apple.")

Answer and Explanation:

• Japanese: SOV. The subject (Taroo) comes first, followed by the object (ringo-o =
"apple"), and the verb (tabemasu = "eats") is at the end.
• English: SVO. English has a subject-verb-object word order. In "She gave him the
book," the subject ("she") comes first, followed by the verb ("gave"), and then the
object ("the book").
• Arabic: VSO. Arabic often uses a verb-subject-object order. "Akala" (ate) is the verb,
"al-walad" (the boy) is the subject, and "at-tuffaha" (the apple) is the object.

Insight:

Word order typology gives insight into the sentence structure of languages. In most cases,
SVO or SOV orders dominate, with variations like VSO being less common but still
systematic.

Chapter 4: Phonological Typology

Task 4: Identify whether the following languages are tonal or non-tonal and provide
examples of tonal contrast where applicable.

• Example languages: Mandarin Chinese, English, Swahili.

Answer and Explanation:

• Mandarin Chinese: Tonal. Mandarin uses tone to differentiate meaning. For

example, the syllable "ma" can mean four different things depending on tone: mā
(mother), má (hemp), mǎ (horse), mà (scold).
• English: Non-tonal. English does not use tone to differentiate the meanings of words,
although intonation can convey different emotions or emphasis.
• Swahili: Non-tonal. Like English, Swahili relies on word stress and does not use pitch
variations to change word meanings.

Insight:

Tonal languages use pitch to distinguish between words, making them different from non-
tonal languages, which use other phonological elements like stress or vowel length. This
distinction is critical in typological studies of sound systems.

Chapter 5: Typology of Grammatical Relations

Task 5: Based on the alignment system of the following languages, determine whether
they are nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive.

• Example sentences:
o Latin: "Puella videt puerum" (The girl sees the boy).
o Basque: "Mutila ikusi du neskak" (The girl has seen the boy).

Answer and Explanation:

• Latin: Nominative-Accusative. In this sentence, "puella" (nominative case) is the

subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs, while "puerum" (accusative) is
marked as the object. Nominative-accusative systems mark the subject of both
transitive and intransitive verbs the same, while objects are marked differently.
• Basque: Ergative-Absolutive. In this sentence, "neska" (the girl) is marked in
the ergative case as the subject of a transitive verb, and "mutila" (the boy) is in
the absolutive case as the object. The ergative-absolutive alignment treats the subject
of intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs the same (in absolutive), but the
subject of transitive verbs differently (in ergative).

Insight:

Grammatical alignment systems show whether a language marks its subjects and objects in
a nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive way. Understanding these systems is crucial
to understanding sentence structure and argument marking across languages.
Conclusion:

For each chapter, focus on recognizing key patterns in language structure, such as
morphological classifications, syntactic word orders, phonological features, and grammatical
relations. For the test, try to practice with more examples and apply the typological concepts
to various languages you're familiar with. Each task involves identifying patterns and
categorizing features based on the language’s structure, which are essential skills in language
typology

Chapter 1: Introduction to Language Typology

Key Concepts:

• Definition of Typology: Language typology is the study of how languages can be

classified according to structural features rather than historical lineage. It contrasts
with comparative linguistics, which looks at historical connections between
languages.
• Typology’s Goals:
o Descriptive: Understand and describe structural differences across languages.
o Explanatory: Explain why languages exhibit certain structural patterns.
o Predictive: Identify patterns (universals) that predict likely structures in
unstudied languages.
• Language Universals:
o Absolute Universals: Features that are found in every known language (e.g.,
all languages have nouns and verbs).
o Implicational Universals: If a language has one feature, it will also have
another (e.g., if a language has VSO word order, it is likely to have
prepositions).
o Statistical Universals: Certain features are common but not obligatory (e.g.,
most languages have subject-initial word order, like SVO or SOV).
• Typological Classification:
o Analytic (Isolating) Languages: Languages with little inflection; words
usually consist of single morphemes (e.g., Mandarin Chinese).
o Synthetic Languages: Languages that use inflections to convey grammatical
relations.
o Agglutinative Languages: Languages where affixes attach to a root in a
sequence, with each affix representing a single function (e.g., Turkish).
o Fusional (Inflectional) Languages: Languages where affixes may convey
multiple grammatical functions simultaneously (e.g., Latin or Spanish).

Key Insights:

• Language typology isn't just about describing language diversity; it helps us

understand how human cognition shapes languages and why some structures are
 more likely than others. Universals suggest there might be cognitive constraints on
how languages develop.

Chapter 2: Morphological Typology

Key Concepts:

• Morphemes: The smallest meaningful units of language. Words can consist of one or
more morphemes.
o Free morphemes can stand alone (e.g., “dog”).
o Bound morphemes must be attached to a root or other morpheme (e.g., “-s” in
“dogs” for plural).
• Types of Morphological Systems:
o Isolating (Analytic): Words consist of single morphemes, no affixation.
Example: Mandarin Chinese.
o Agglutinative: Words are composed of a base and multiple affixes, with each
affix representing one grammatical category (e.g., tense, case).
Example: Turkish (e.g., "ev-ler-im" = "my houses").
o Fusional (Inflectional): One morpheme may carry multiple grammatical
meanings. Example: Spanish"hablo" (first person singular present tense of "to
speak").
o Polysynthetic: Extremely complex words that can express what would be full
sentences in other languages. Example: Inuktitut.
• Inflection vs. Derivation:
o Inflection: Modifies a word to express different grammatical categories like
tense, number, or case but does not change the word's core meaning (e.g.,
"dog" → "dogs").
o Derivation: Creates new words by adding affixes, often changing the word
class (e.g., "happy" → "happiness").

Key Insights:

• Morphological typology shows us how languages vary dramatically in how they

handle word structure. While some languages prefer minimal affixation (isolating),
others rely heavily on it (agglutinative or polysynthetic), reflecting the diversity of
grammatical encoding in human languages.

Chapter 3: Syntactic Typology

Key Concepts:

• Word Order Typology: A primary concern of syntactic typology is the order

of subject (S), object (O), and verb (V). The most common word orders are:
o SOV: Subject-Object-Verb (e.g., Japanese: "Taroo-ga ringo-o taberu" = "Taro
eats an apple").
o SVO: Subject-Verb-Object (e.g., English: "She eats an apple").
 o VSO: Verb-Subject-Object (e.g., Arabic: "Yākul al-walad at-tuffāha" = "The
boy eats the apple").
o Other orders like VOS, OVS, and OSV are rare.
• Correlations with Word Order:
o Head-Initial vs. Head-Final: If a language is head-initial, the head (the
central part of a phrase, like a verb or noun) comes before its dependents (e.g.,
prepositions in SVO languages). In head-final languages (like Japanese), the
head comes after its dependents (e.g., postpositions).
o Case Marking: Some languages rely on word order to show who is doing
what to whom (e.g., English), while others rely on case marking (e.g., Latin,
Russian).
o Agreement: Some languages use verb-subject agreement (e.g., in Spanish,
verbs change form depending on the subject).
• Typological Features Related to Word Order:
o SOV languages tend to have postpositions (e.g., in Japanese, "under the table"
is "table-under").
o SVO languages tend to have prepositions (e.g., in English, "under the table").
o Verb-final languages often use auxiliary verbs and other elements in positions
other than the end of the sentence.

Key Insights:

• Word order is one of the most basic ways that languages vary, but despite this
variation, certain word orders (SVO, SOV) are far more common, suggesting
cognitive or communicative preferences.

Chapter 4: Phonological Typology

Key Concepts:

• Phonological Systems: This chapter introduces how languages differ in their sound
systems, including:
o Phoneme Inventory: The set of distinct sounds in a language. Some languages
have a small number of phonemes (e.g., Hawaiian with 13), while others have
large inventories (e.g., !Xóõ with over 100).
o Vowel Systems: Some languages have a small vowel inventory (e.g., Standard
Arabic has 3 vowels), while others have many (e.g., English).
o Consonant Systems: Languages vary in how they use consonants, including
the presence of clicks (as in Khoisan languages) or tonal systems (as in
Mandarin).
• Tonal vs. Non-Tonal Languages:
o Tonal Languages: In tonal languages (e.g., Mandarin), the pitch or contour of
a word changes its meaning.
o Non-Tonal Languages: In non-tonal languages (e.g., English), pitch may
change emotion or emphasis but not meaning.
• Stress and Syllable Structure:
o Some languages use stress to distinguish words (e.g., in English, 'present' vs.
'present').
 o Syllable structure varies significantly across languages: some prefer simple
syllables (e.g., CV in Hawaiian), while others allow complex clusters (e.g.,
CCC in Russian).

Key Insights:

• Phonological systems show the wide variety in how languages use sound to encode
meaning. While tonal systems might seem exotic to speakers of non-tonal languages,
they are common and illustrate the rich diversity of linguistic tools available across the
world.

Chapter 5: Typology of Grammatical Relations

Key Concepts:

• Grammatical Relations: This chapter explores how languages express grammatical

roles like subject, object, and indirect object. It introduces different alignment
systems:
o Nominative-Accusative: In these systems, the subject of both transitive and
intransitive verbs is treated the same way, while the object is marked
differently (e.g., English, Spanish).
o Ergative-Absolutive: Here, the subject of an intransitive verb and the object
of a transitive verb are treated the same, while the subject of a transitive verb is
marked differently (e.g., Basque, Georgian).
• Case Marking Systems:
o Nominative-Accusative Languages typically mark subjects and objects
differently (e.g., in Latin, "puella" (subject) vs. "puellam" (object)).
o Ergative-Absolutive Languages might mark the agent of a transitive verb
differently from the subject of an intransitive one (e.g., Basque).
• Agreement Systems: Some languages mark agreement between nouns and verbs for
features like number, gender, and case (e.g., in Spanish, "Los niños juegan" = "The
children play," where "juegan" agrees with "niños").

Key Insights:

• The way languages encode grammatical relations varies significantly, but certain
patterns are more common. The distinction between nominative-
accusative and ergative-absolutive systems offers profound insight into how different
languages conceptualize action and agency