Pure and mixed separatist languages prefer agglutinative morphology and free word order.
Standardized
IF a language is of the pure or the mixed separatist type of relational clause structuring, THEN there will be agglutinative morphology and free word order.
Keywords
semantic role, information flow, deixis, agglutination, free word order
Domain
inflection, syntax
Type
implication
Status
achronic
Quality
statistical
Basis
languages mentioned in Kibrik 1997, including NE Caucasian, e.g. Archi, Tsakhur (both Lezgic), Chamalal (Andic), Dargwa (Dargwa-Lakic); Western Malayo-Polynesian, e.g. Acehnese, Riau Indonesian, Tagalog, Kapampangan; Navajo (Athabaskan); Lisu (Tibeto-Burman); Yimas (Sepik, Papuan); Enga (Trans-New Guinea); Yukaghir (isolate, or Uralic); Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan, Australian); Jakaltek (Mayan); Lakhota (Siouan); Russian (Slavic, IE) and others
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. With the threefold classification of the main semantic dimensions, within the MIXED languages, four combinations are theoretically possible, although not equally probable: role-flow, role-deixis, flow-deixis, and role-flow-deixis. Moreover, these various multiple orientaions can be expressed by SEPARATIST or CUMULATIVE coding techniques, that is, with separate coding devices for the respective dimensions, as in separatist mixed languages, or as in cumulative mixed languages, with the dimensions amalgamated at an intermediate formal level, that of syntactic relations.2. It should be emphasised that the term PIVOT here refers to semantic dimensions (whose concepts are prominent and grammaticalised in relevant languages), 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).
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. With the threefold classification of the main semantic dimensions, within the MIXED languages, four combinations are theoretically possible, although not equally probable: role-flow, role-deixis, flow-deixis, and role-flow-deixis. Moreover, these various multiple orientaions can be expressed by SEPARATIST or CUMULATIVE coding techniques, that is, with separate coding devices for the respective dimensions, as in separatist mixed languages, or as in cumulative mixed languages, with the dimensions amalgamated at an intermediate formal level, that of syntactic relations.2. It should be emphasised that the term PIVOT here refers to semantic dimensions (whose concepts are prominent and grammaticalised in relevant languages), 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).