Questions: Language Universals and Universal Grammar

Question 1

A linguist finds that Language X uses Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) word order. Based on Greenberg's implicational universals, what would be the most likely prediction about Language X?

• A. Language X probably uses prepositions rather than postpositions
• B. Language X must have no case system, since VSO order provides enough structural clarity
• C. Language X will have the same phoneme inventory as other VSO languages
• D. Language X is likely genetically related to other VSO languages like Irish and Arabic

Answer: (A)

Greenberg found that word order and other typological features cluster statistically. VSO languages overwhelmingly use prepositions (e.g., 'in the house') rather than postpositions (e.g., 'the house in'). This is an implicational universal: if a language has VSO order, it tends to have prepositions. The correlation is statistical, not absolute — exceptions exist — but the clustering is strong enough to generate reliable predictions about new languages.

Question 2

Chomsky's Universal Grammar hypothesis differs from usage-based explanations of language universals primarily because:

• A. UG claims universals reflect an innate biological language faculty; usage-based accounts attribute them to general cognitive processes and cultural transmission
• B. UG is based on cross-linguistic surveys; usage-based accounts are based on experiments with children
• C. UG predicts all languages have the same word order; usage-based accounts allow for variation
• D. UG applies only to syntax; usage-based accounts can explain phonological universals too

Answer: (A)

The core dispute is about the source of universals. Universal Grammar proposes that the commonalities across languages reflect a species-specific, innate biological endowment — a language faculty with principles and parameters. Usage-based accounts argue the same patterns can be explained by general cognitive mechanisms (pattern recognition, analogy, frequency learning) applied to culturally transmitted data, without positing a dedicated innate grammar. Both accept that universals exist; they disagree on why.

Question 3

Universal Grammar claims that most human languages are fundamentally the same — they share the same grammatical rules and structures.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is the most common misunderstanding of UG. Universal Grammar does not claim all languages are the same. It claims languages conform to abstract principles (such as structure-dependence) and vary along a finite set of parameters (such as head-directionality or null-subject permission). This framework explicitly predicts variation: two languages can look very different in surface features while both conforming to UG principles. UG defines the space of possible human languages, not a single universal grammar.

Question 4

The debate between Universal Grammar and usage-based accounts of language universals is empirical — meaning evidence from child language acquisition, creolization, and sign languages can help adjudicate between them.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

The innateness debate has real empirical content. If children reliably acquire complex grammatical properties that are not evident in the input (the 'poverty of the stimulus' argument), that supports UG. If deaf children spontaneously develop structured sign languages along the same developmental trajectory as hearing children, that supports the universality of the language faculty. If creoles emerging from impoverished pidgins show systematic regularization, that also bears on the debate. Both sides appeal to evidence — the disagreement is about what the evidence shows.

Question 5

What is the difference between an 'absolute universal' and an 'implicational universal,' and why do most observed language universals fall into the implicational category?

Model answer: An absolute universal is a property true of every known human language without exception. An implicational universal takes the form 'if a language has property X, it tends to have property Y' — a conditional correlation, not a universal rule. Most universals are implicational because genuine exceptions to absolute claims are regularly discovered as more languages are documented, and because the conditional form captures the statistical clustering of typological features without requiring zero exceptions.

Greenberg's original universals were largely implicational, linking features like word order to the placement of adpositions or relative clauses. A language might violate an expected correlation, but such violations are rare enough to be noteworthy. The implicational form is also more theoretically useful: explaining why feature X tends to co-occur with feature Y (whether through processing efficiency, historical drift, or innate parameters) is more tractable than proving some property holds universally with no exceptions.