Linguistic universals and the order of verbs in Germanic

关于语言共相的深度和来源的争论是当前语言学的核心部分。他们的兴趣源于这样一个事实，即他们关注的是思维是如何运作的，所有人类是多么的不同或相似，以及先天和后天在其中扮演了什么角色。我将通过对一组特定的普遍主义建议提供进一步的经验支持来促进这些辩论。这将通过研究日耳曼语言和方言中可能的和不可能的词序模式来实现。最近的研究激发了关于语序的强烈普遍主义主张。Cinque（2005：推导格林伯格的通用20及其例外，语言学调查）认为，所有已证实的名词(N)、形容词(A)、数词（Num）和指示词（Dem）的中性顺序都是源自共同的潜在结构类型的简单排列。在英语中，就像在许多其他语言中一样，顺序是“这五个公务员”，即Dem-Num-A-N，而在瓜语中，就像在许多其他语言中一样，顺序是完全相反的：N-A-Num-Dem。在一种更罕见的语言中，例如班图语基库尤语，指示词、数词和形容词的相对顺序与英语相同，而名词排在前面：N-Dem-Num-A。在任何语言中都没有与这个顺序完全相反的证据。在24个逻辑上可能的Dem、Num、A和N的阶数中，Cinque（2005）报告了14个已被证实的阶数，10个未被证实的阶数，并提出了一个简单的形式化理论，该理论只产生了14个已被证实的阶数。目前的项目重点是日耳曼语言和方言。在这些语言和方言中，动词和动词相关元素的顺序是出了名的多变。动词“will”、“want”、“call”和句子“John will want to call up Sue”中的助词“up”的顺序是will-want-call-up，在德语中正好相反：up-call-want-will。英语和德语之间的这种对比让人想起上面提到的英语和冈贝语之间的对比。在荷兰语中，“up-will-want-call”的顺序是“up-will-want-call”，而“will”、“want”和“call”的顺序与英语类似，但助词在前面。这让人联想到名词短语中的基库尤语顺序，它与英语相似，只是名词在最初的位置。荷兰秩序的镜像“call-want-will-up”在任何语言或方言中都找不到。这再次让人联想到跨语言记录中关于名词短语的反向基库尤语顺序的缺失。日耳曼语中名词短语和动词之间排序可能性的相似性是惊人的和具有启发性的。我将首先调查，在多大程度上，在日耳曼语言和方言中发现的动词的变化顺序可以在形式上与上述名词短语的顺序相同。该研究围绕着一个实证问题展开，即在四个动词和与动词相关的元素聚集在一起的结构中，是否在一些日耳曼变体中出现了所有或只有14个期望顺序。如果这一假设成立，那么日耳曼语中的动词顺序就不能再被视为Cinque著作中一个重要建议的反例：在中性词序的生成中，每当一个项目（如基库尤语中的名词或荷兰语中的助词）移动时，它就向前移动。这样的结果将大大加强普遍主义的地位。第二组问题涉及到关于语言元素顺序的更微妙的概括。例如，尽管日耳曼语言和方言之间存在很大的词序差异，但没有一种语言或方言可以用分词跟在层次上更突出的元素后面，而不定式必须放在层次上更突出的元素前面。这些从文献中归纳出来的结论将经过实证检验，并在结构术语中寻求解释。

Debates over the depth and provenance of linguistic universals are a central part of current linguistics. Their interest derives from the fact that they bear on the issue of how mind works, how diverse or similar all humans are, and what roles nature and nurture play in this. I will contribute to these debates by giving further empirical support to a particular set of universalist proposals. This will be achieved by studying possible and impossible word order patterns within the Germanic languages and dialects.Recent work motivates strong universalist claims about word order. Cinque (2005: Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and its Exceptions, Linguistic Inquiry) has argued that all attested neutral orders of nouns (N), adjectives (A), numerals (Num), and demonstratives (Dem) are simple permutations derived from a common underlying structural type. In English, as in many other languages, the order is 'these five public employees', i.e., Dem-Num-A-N, while in the Kwa language Gungbe, as again in many other languages, it is the exact opposite: N-A-Num-Dem. In a rarer type of language, for example the Bantu language Kikuyu, the relative order of demonstrative, numeral and adjective is the same as in English, while the noun comes first: N-Dem-Num-A. The exact opposite of this order is not attested in any language. Of the 24 logically possible orders of Dem, Num, A, and N, Cinque (2005) reports 14 as attested and 10 as unattested and suggests a simple, formal theory that generates all and only the 14 attested orders. The current project focuses on Germanic languages and dialects. In these languages and dialects, the order of verbs and verb-related elements is notoriously variable. The order of the verbs 'will', 'want', 'call' and the particle 'up' in the sentence 'John will want to call up Sue' is will-want-call-up, it would be the exact opposite in German: up-call-want-will. This contrast between English and German is reminiscent of that between English and Gungbe mentioned above. In Dutch the order comes out as 'up-will-want-call', where 'will', 'want', and 'call' come in an English-like order, but the particle precedes. This is reminiscent of the Kikuyu order in the noun phrase, which was English-like, except with the noun in initial position. The mirror image of the Dutch order, 'call-want-will-up', is never found in any language or dialect. This is again reminiscent of the absence of the reverse Kikuyu order from the cross-linguistic record regarding the noun phrase. The similarity between ordering possibilities in the noun phrase and among verbs in Germanic are striking and suggestive. I will investigate first, to what extent the variable orders found amongst verbs in the Germanic languages and dialects can be characterized formally in the same terms as the orders described above for the noun phrase. The research revolves around the empirical question whether in constructions that cluster together four verb and verb-related elements all and only the 14 expected orders show up in some Germanic variant or other. If this hypothesis can be upheld, the orders of verbs in Germanic can no longer be seen as a counterexample to one of the crucial proposals contained in Cinque's work: In the generation of neutral word orders, whenever an item (such as the noun in Kikuyu or the particle in Dutch) moves, it moves forward. Such a result would strengthen the universalist position considerably. The second set of questions concerns more subtle generalizations regarding the order of verbal elements. For example, while there are large word-order differences between the Germanic languages and dialects, there is no language or dialect where a participle could follow a hierarchically more prominent element while infinitives have to precede such hierarchically more prominent elements. Such generalizations from the literature willbe tested empirically and an explanation sought in structural terms.