Advertisement

Crosslinguistic Computation and a Rhythm-based Classification of Languages

  • August Fenk
  • Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon
Conference paper
  • 1.6k Downloads
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

This paper is in line with the principles of numerical taxonomy and with the program of holistic typology. It integrates the level of phonology with the morphological and syntactical level by correlating metric properties (such as n of phonemes per syllable and n of syllables per clause) with non-metric variables such as the number of morphological cases and adposition order. The study of crosslinguistic patterns of variation results in a division of languages into two main groups, depending on their rhythmical structure. Syllable-timed rhythm, as opposed to stress-timed rhythm, is closely associated with a lower complexity of syllables and a higher number of syllables per clause, with a rather high number of morphological cases and with a tendency to OV order and postpositions. These two fundamental types of language may be viewed as the “idealized” counterparts resulting from the very same and universal pattern of variation.

Keywords

Numerical Taxonomy Fundamental Type Morphological Case Superordinate Concept Systemic Typology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALTMANN, G. and LEHFELDT, W. (1973): Allgemeine Sprachtypologie. Wilhelm Fink, München.Google Scholar
  2. AUER, P. (1993): Is a Rhythm-based Typology Possible? A Study of the Role of Prosody in Phonological Typology. KontRI Working Paper (University Konstanz) 21.Google Scholar
  3. CROFT, W. (1990): Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. DONEGAN, P. and STAMPE, D. (1983): Rhythm and the Holistic Organization of Language Structure. In: J.F. Richardson et al. (Eds.): Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Chicago: CLS 1983, 337–353.Google Scholar
  5. FENK, A. and FENK-OCZLON, G. (1993): Menzerath’s Law and the Constant Flow of Linguistic Information. In: R. Köhler and B. Rieger (Eds.): Contributions to Quantitative Linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 11–31.Google Scholar
  6. FENK-OCZLON, G. (1983): Bedeutungseinheiten und sprachliche Segmentierung. Eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung über kognitive Determinanten der Kernsatzlänge. Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  7. FENK-OCZLON, G. and FENK, A. (1985): The Mean Length of Propositions is 7 Plus Minus 2 Syllables—but the Position of Languages within this Range is not Accidental. In: G. D’Ydewalle (Ed.): Cognition, Information Processing, and Motivation. XXIII Int. Congress of Psychology. (Selected/revised papers). North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 355–359.Google Scholar
  8. — (1999): Cognition, Quantitative Linguistics, and Systemic Typology. Linguistic Typology, 3-2, 151–177.Google Scholar
  9. — (2002): The Clausal Structure of Linguistic and Pre-linguistic Behavior. In: T. Givón and B.F. Malle (Eds.): The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language. (Typological Studies 53). John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 215–229.Google Scholar
  10. — (2005): Crosslinguistic Correlations between Size of Syllables, Number of Cases, and Adposition Order. In: G. Fenk-Oczlon and Ch. Winkler (Eds.): Sprache und Natürlichkeit. Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler. Narr, Tübingen, 75–86.Google Scholar
  11. GABELENTZ, G. von der (1901): Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Tauchnitz, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  12. GIL, D. (1986): A Prosodic Typology of Language. Folia Linguistica, 20, 1986, 165–231.Google Scholar
  13. GREENBERG, J.H. (1966): Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In: J.H. Greenberg (Ed.): Universals of Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 73–113.Google Scholar
  14. HEMPEL, C.G. and OPPENHEIM, P. (1936): Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik. A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V., Leiden.Google Scholar
  15. LADEFOGED, P. (2001): Vowels and Consonants: an Introduction to the Sounds of Languages. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. MENZERATH, P. (1954): Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes. Dümmler, Bonn.Google Scholar
  17. MILLER, G.A. (1956): The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
  18. PLANK, F. (1986): Paradigm Size, Morphological Typology, and Universal Economy. Folia Linguistica, 20, 29–48.Google Scholar
  19. — (1991): Hypology, Typology: The Gabelentz Puzzle. Folia Linguistica, 25, 421–458.Google Scholar
  20. — (1998): The Co-variation of Phonology with Morphology and Syntax: A Hopeful History. Linguistic Typology, 2, 195–230.Google Scholar
  21. RAMUS, F., HAUSER, M.D., MILLER, C., MORRIS, D., and MEHLER, J. (2000): Language Discrimination by Human Newborns and by Cotton-top Tamarin Monkeys. Science, 288, 349–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ROACH, P. (1982): On the Distinction between “Stress-Timed” and “Syllable-Timed” Languages. In: D. Crystal (Ed.): Linguistic Controversies. Edward Arnold, London, 73–79.Google Scholar
  23. SOKAL, R.R. and SNEATH, P.H.A. (1963): Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin · Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • August Fenk
    • 1
  • Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Medien- und KommunikationswissenschaftUniversität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.Institut für Sprachwissenschaft und ComputerlinguistikUniversität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations