Universal #70

Legacy number: 70

 Number  70
 Original  If a language has prepositions and any verb position other than SVO, then if the adjectives follows the noun, the genitive follows the noun.
 Standardized  IF there are prepositions and basic order is not SVO, THEN IF the adjectives follows the noun, THEN the genitive follows the noun.
 Formula  Prep & ¬SVO ⇒ (N A ⇒ N G)
 Keywords  order, SVO, preposition, adjective, noun, attributive, genitive
 Domain  syntax
 Type  nested implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical (according to author absolute)
 Basis  sample of 350 languages in Hawkins 1983
 Source  Hawkins 1983: 67

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
1. Prep & VOS & NA & GN: Kilivila (Oceanic, Austronesian); Garawa (Garawan, Australian) (Dryer 1991);.2. Prep & SOV & NA & GN: Northern Tajik (Iranian, Indo-European) (Campbell et al. 1988)
Notes
1. Dryer 1988: “There is no evidence for the correlation between Adposition-Noun and Adjective-Noun order nor between Genitive-Noun and Adjective-Noun order. There is no evidence of any relationship between the order of Verb and Object and the order of Adjective and Noun.”2. Krifka 1985: 82, referring to Hawkins’s universals (here #69, 70): “Universal Prep => (N A => N G) has four counterexamples noted by Hawkins himself, namely Arapesh, Gitua (both E. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian), Karen (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan) and Kaliai-Kove (E. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian). Hawkins therefore strengthens the universal to Prep & ¬SVO => (N A => N G), which has no exceptions in the sample. But it is unclear whether such complex implications are of any interest for the study of language. One can easily conceive that they just describe the sample in an ad hoc manner and don’t have any theoretical status at all.” 3. Since the 1990s, Hawkins proposes alternative explanations of his universals (see e.g. Hawkins 1993: 234).
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Dryer 1988: "There is no evidence for the correlation between Adposition-Noun and Adjective-Noun order nor between Genitive-Noun and Adjective-Noun order. There is no evidence of any relationship between the order of Verb and Object and the order of Adjective and Noun."

2. Krifka 1985: 82, referring to Hawkins's universals (here <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=69"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=70"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">): "Universal Prep ⇒ (N A ⇒ N G) has four counterexamples noted by Hawkins himself, namely Arapesh, Gitua (both E. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian), Karen (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan) and Kaliai-Kove (E. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian). Hawkins therefore strengthens the universal to Prep & ¬SVO ⇒ (N A ⇒ N G), which has no exceptions in the sample. But it is unclear whether such complex implications are of any interest for the study of language. One can easily conceive that they just describe the sample in an ad hoc manner and don't have any theoretical status at all."

3. Since the 1990s, Hawkins proposes alternative explanations of his universals (see e.g. Hawkins 1993: 234).