Universal #1907

Legacy number: 1907

 Number  1902
 Original  Pivotless languages favour isolating morphology and free word order.
 Standardized  IF a language is pivotless, THEN there will be isolating morphology and free word order.
 Keywords  semantic role, information flow, deixis, isolating, free word order, NP encoding
 Domain  inflection, syntax
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  languages mentioned in Kibrik 1997, including NE Caucasian lgs, e.g. Archi, Tsakhur (both Lezgic), Chamalal (Andic), Dargwa (Dargwa-Lakic); Western Malayo-Polynesian lgs, e.g. Acehnese, Riau Indonesian, Tagalog, Kapampangan; Navajo (Athabaskan), Lisu (Tibeto-Burman), Yimas (Sepik, Papuan), Yukaghir (isolate), Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan), Jacaltec (Mayan), Lakhota (Siouan), Enga (Trans-New Guinea), Russian (Slavic, IE) and others
 Source  Kibrik 1997: 335

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
1. Kibrik argues that syntactic relations, especially those of subject and object are not universal, but are only one of several possibilities of organizing relational clause structure. The three main dimensions of relational structuring – called grammatical PIVOTS by Kibrik (see comment 2) – are those of semantic roles, information flow, and deictic anchoring. There are three major language types depending on the extent to which these dimensions are grammaticalized: PIVOTLESS languages, with no or little grammaticalization of any of these dimensions; PURE languages strongly grammaticalizing only one of them, especially that of roles; MIXED languages strongly grammaticalizing more than one. According to this classification, A PIVOTLESS language is one that neglects role, flow, and deictic concepts in expressing the argument structure of the proposition, giving a maximally straightforward representation of the event. Riau Indonesian is a possible example. (Kibrik 1997:297).2. It should be emphasised that the term PIVOT here refers to semantic dimensions (whose concepts are prominent and grammaticalised in a language under consideration), and so this term is different from Dixon’s (1979) and Foley & Van Valin’s (1984) pivots. In their frameworks the pivot is an NP that can be called central due to its syntactic properties. (Kibrik 1997: 339, fn. 23)
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Kibrik argues that syntactic relations, especially those of subject and object are not universal, but are only one of several possibilities of organizing relational clause structure. The three main dimensions of relational structuring – called grammatical PIVOTS by Kibrik (see comment 2) – are those of semantic roles, information flow, and deictic anchoring. There are three major language types depending on the extent to which these dimensions are grammaticalized:
PIVOTLESS languages, with no or little grammaticalization of any of these dimensions;
PURE languages strongly grammaticalizing only one of them, especially that of roles;
MIXED languages strongly grammaticalizing more than one.
According to this classification, A PIVOTLESS language is one that neglects role, flow, and deictic concepts in expressing the argument structure of the proposition, giving a maximally straightforward representation of the event. Riau Indonesian is a possible example. (Kibrik 1997: 297).

2. It should be emphasised that the term PIVOT here refers to semantic dimensions (whose concepts are prominent and grammaticalised in a language under consideration), and so this term is different from Dixon's 1979 and Foley & Van Valin's 198) pivots. In their frameworks the pivot is an NP that can be called central due to its syntactic properties. (Kibrik 1997: 339, fn. 23)