Abstract
From the arbitrary (though sensible) definition of language as “(phonic) system used to say something about someone or something” it follows that to say (i.e. to predicate) something about someone or something (i.e. about entities or states of affairs conceived in our mind) belongs to the basic activities of our brain. In Edward Sapir’s words “There must be something to talk about and something must be said about this subject once it is selected” (sapir 1921; repr. 1949: p. 119).
If we understand the Aristotelian terms hypokeímenon and katēgoroúmenon (Lat. subjectum and praedicatum respectively) not in the grammatical meaning they acquired in the Western grammatical tradition but, in a functional sentence perspective, as ‘topic’ and ‘comment’, or ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’, we may affirm that they constitute the basic sentence structure, the essential part for the semantic interpretation of the sentence. Consequently, many linguists see NOUN and VERB as universal categories that all languages must have. But the discussion concerning whether the distinction NOUN/VERB is valid everywhere, for instance among the Iroquoian languages, is far from being settled. At the other end of the extant typological structures, the same could be said for the so-called precategorial languages of South East Asia, in which the functional value of a word (and hence its categorial status) is often determined only by its syntactic context (see Walter Bisang’s many contributions on the subject).
We need multiple criteria in order to assign a category to a lexeme, or better, a given lexeme to a category. Accordingly, the present paper tries to make a distinction between semantic function and morphosyntactic functioning of words and shows that both viewpoints are necessary and complementary to define the linguistic status of a word. The concept of ‘tertium comparationis’ will help to clarify the point.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aarts, Bas. 2006. Conceptions of categorization in the history of linguistics, Language Sciences 28: 361–385.
Bhat, Shankara D.N. 1994. The adjectival category. Criteria for differentiation and identification. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Benveniste, Émile. 1950 [>1966]. ‘La phrase nominale’, Bull. de la Soc. de Linguist. de Paris 46 [repr. in E.B., Problèmes de linguistique génerale. Gallimard, Paris, vol. I, Chapt. XIII].
Bisang, Walter. 2006. Southeast Asia as a linguistic category. In edEncyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, ed. -in-chief K. Brown, vol, 11, 587–595. Elsevier.
Bisang, Walter. forthcom. Transcategoriality and argument structure constructions in Late Archaic Chinese. In The cognitive organization and reorganization of grammatical constructions ed. Jaakko Leino. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Björn Wiemer. eds. 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1974. Les Universaux linguistiques (et les autres). In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, ed. L. Heilmann, vol. I: 47–73. Il Mulino, Bologna.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press: Chicago/London.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1: 19–80.
Fiorentino, Giuliana. 2004. Nomi d’azione e subordinazione in italiano. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 42: 9–41.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Adam Hodges, David S. Rood. eds. 2004. Linguistic diversity and language theories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Frege, Gottlob. 1903/1997. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik . In The frege reader, ed. B. Michael. Blackwell, Oxford, vol.II.
Gaeta, Livio. 2002. Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi. Un saggio di Morfologia Naturale. FrancoAngeli, Milano.
Giacalone Ramat , Anna, Andrea Sansò. 2007. The spread and decline of indefinite man-constructions in European languages: An areal perspective’. In Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective, eds. P. Ramat and E. Roma. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff. 2001. Lexico-semantics universals: a critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5: 1–65.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Parts of Speech. In Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective, eds. M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Kristoffersen, 29–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Ježek, Elisabetta and Paolo Ramat. forthcom. On Parts-of-Speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica.
Laudanna, Alessandro and Miriam Voghera. (a c. di). 2006. Il linguaggio. Strutture linguistiche e processi cognitivi. Bari/Roma: Laterza.
Lazard, Gilbert and Louise Peltzer. (2000). Structure de la langue tahitienne. Leuven/Paris: Peeters.
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2000. Gli aggettivi giapponesi fra nome everbo. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 29:311–345.
Maddieson, Jan. 2005. Vowel quality inventories. In World atlas of language structures, eds. M. Dryer, M. Haspelmath, D. Gil, B. Comrie, 14–15. Oxford: University Press.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: University Press.
Nuyts, Jan and Eric Pederson. eds. 1997. Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: University Press.
Pompei, Anna. 2006. Participles as a non-prototypical word class. In Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, eds. E. Crespo, J. De la Villa, and A. R. Revuelta, 361–388. Proceedings of the Conference held in Madrid, June 2003. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Ramat, Paolo. 1999. Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Language 37:217–251.
Ramat, Paolo. 2005. Pagine linguistiche. Bari/Roma: Laterza.
Robert, Stéphane. 2004. The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory. In ed. Z. Frajzyngier et al. :119–142.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. [Repr. 1949].
Schachter, Paul. (1985). Parts-of-speech systems. In ed. T. Shopen, vol.I, 3–61.
Sgall, Petr. ed. 2006 [< 1958]. Zur Typologie des Infinitivs. In Language in its multifarious aspects. Prague: The Karolinum Press.
Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1985. Language typology and syntactic description. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simone, Raffaele. 2003. Maşdar, ‘ismu al-marrati et la frontière verbe/nom. In Estudios ofrecidos al prof. J.J. de Bustos Tovar, eds. Girón Alconchel and José Luis et al., 2 vols, 259–288. Madrid, Editorial Complutense.
Simone, Raffaele. 2004. L’infinito nominale nel discorso. In Generi, architetture e forme testuali, vol. I: 73–96. Atti del VII Convegno SILFI, Roma ottobre 2002. Roma, Cesati.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 2004. What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Comments on Wunderlich. Studies in Language 28: 642–645.
Tomlin, Russell S. 1997. Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: the role of attention in grammar. In eds. J. Nuyts and E. Pederson, 162–189.
Vineis, Edoardo. 1998. Partes orationis: parti del discorso o parti della proposizione? In Ars linguistica, a c. di. G. Bernini, P. Cuzzolin, and P. Molinelli, 521–526. Studi offerti a Paolo Ramat. Roma: Bulzoni.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality ed. by J. B. Carroll, Cambridge (Mass.).
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2007. Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology. Studies in Language 29: 14–65.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ramat, P. (2009). How Universal are Linguistic Categories?. In: Scalise, S., Magni, E., Bisetto, A. (eds) Universals of Language Today. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 76. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8824-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8825-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)