1. What is the language universals? Kinds of universals. Absolute and statistical

3. Implicational universals
Language universals may also be generalizations about properties of just a small selection of languages, so-called implicational universals.
For an implicational universal to make sense, there must also exist languages that have neither property A nor property B. Indeed, some languages lack both voiced and unvoiced fricatives.
The correlation between unvoiced and voiced fricatives is an absolute implicational universal. But there are also examples of statistical implicational universals. For instance, if a language typically places the main verb between the subject and the object, as in English The cat caught the mouse, its relative clauses usually follow the noun they modify, as in the cat that caught the mouse, but Chinese and a few other languages are exceptions, placing relative clauses before the noun they modify.
Examples of language universals:
•All languages have vowels and consonants.
•All languages have nouns and verbs.
•All languages have demonstratives.
•The subject tends to precede the object.
•Question words typically occur at the beginning of a question.
•Personal pronouns are usually marked for number.
Two explanations for language universals:
(i) Innate Universal Grammar
(ii) Functional and cognitive pressures that shape linguistic structures over
time.
4. Explanations for universals
One way of trying to account for universals is the monogenesis hypothesis: the idea that all languages stem from the same proto-language and have inherited the same universal traits from this proto-language. But this explanation does not take us very far. It may or may not be true that all languages stem from the same proto- language somewhere in the distant past. But even if this should turn out to be true, this cannot explain the existence of many universals.
5. Lexical universals
Most lexical universals are approximate rather than precise. For instance, it has often been said that all languages have the concepts of 'b ack' and 'white', but this is only true in an approximate sense. In languages with few colour terms, such as the Indonesian language Lani, which only has two, the word for 'black' also covers dark and cool colours like green and blue, while the word for 'white' also covers light and warm colours like red and yellow. Thus, English black and Lani mili are only approximate equivalents, and the same is true of English white and Lani laambu.
Furthermore, most lexical universals are statistical rather than absolute. The concept of'water', for instance, is probably found in most languages, but not in all. The closest equivalent in Japanese is mizu, which, however is only used abo cold water; another word o-yu is used for hot water The Yimas language of New Guinea has no word for 'water' at all and instead uses the word arm 'liquid', which may also
Lexicalization
A language has lexicalized a concept when it uses a word (or some other lexical item) to represent this concept.
All languages have syllables, consonants and vowels. All languages have at least one stop phone. All languages have lexical words and distributional words (minimal free forms). All languages distinguish between grammatical units of at least three sizes, word, phrase and clause.
Non-absolute non-implicational universals:
Most languages have CV (consonant vowel) syllables. Most languages have nasal phones. Most languages have an alveolar stop, and most have the high front vowel. In most languages a part-of-speech distinction can be drawn between nouns and verbs.
Absolute implicational universals:
If a language has phonemic mid-vowels it has phonemic high vowels. If a language has voiceless nasals it also has voiced nasals. If a language distinguishes dual number (a grammatical category indicating "two")in pronouns it also distinguishes plural number.
Non-absolute implicational universals:
If a language has phonemic affricates, it usually has phonemic fricatives as well. If one of two number categories is marked by an affix to a noun, it tends to be the plural. If a language has front rounded vowel phones, it will usually have front spread and back rounded vowels.
II. Since we discussed some of the basic language universals it is important to figure out how they are explored. There are many different approaches but we are going to have a look at the two fundamental ones: Chomskyan and Greenbergian.
Chomskyan approach to the study of universals.
At the most superficial level the term universals reminds us that all human languages use the same stock of elements: consonants, vowels, nouns, verbs, an clauses and so on. There is some variation from language to language: all languages have consonants only some have fricatives (such as "f" and "v"
in English.); all of them use nouns and verbs, only some of them have articles, adjectives, or classifiers… Chomsky's universals are common to all human beingsin the initial state of the language in the human mind. He takes "universal grammar *" to be a study ofthe biologically necessity. For him studying a single language is sufficient to abstract from the data the underlying universal. One ethnic language for him is an exemplar (pattern) indicative of the PROPERTIES of LANGUAGE.
Greenbergian approach to the study of universals
According to J. Greenberg the term "language universals" refers to the general prin ciples that govern all the spoken languages around the world. These can be attested only after detailed analysis of a large number of the languages spoken around the world. We can draw conclusions about universal phenomena and tendencies only on the basis of statistical data. He thinks that these are the most important reasons universals to be so important:
1. Universals state what is possible in human language and what is not.
2. They help us to understand the characteristic of the human brain relevant to the
functioning of language and principles that govern interpersonal communication in
all cultures.
3. They help us to understand what in the human brain and social organization
ofeveryday life enables people to communicate through language.
1In this study we are going to see how the idea of language universals is put forward by different approaches proposed by N. Chomsky and J. H. Greenberg and what different claims have been made about these universals and at what points these diverge. And we are going to focus on the ideas of Bernard Comrie while explaining how the two approaches differ and especially explain and exemplify what kind of universals are proposed by J.H. Greenberg. We are going to also mention Greenberg's generalizations on these universals. l- Why do language universals exist? The question of the reason why language universals exist playa a crucial role in determining the approach one should accept so we will mention the reasons briefly. Finegan (1994) states there are 4 main explanations for the existence of the language universals. These are:
1.1- Original Language Hypothesis This hypothesis depends on the idea that all of he languages in the world derive historically from the same language. But it does not seem to be logical for some factors that are stated by Finegan (1994). First of all different groups that are not in contact developed language at the same time. What is more even if they derived from the same language there is no proof or disproof for the hypothesis. And the fundamental differences between the languages existent today are another problem for supporting such a hypothesis.
1.2- Universals and perception This hypothesis says that languages are symptomsof how all humans perceive the world and conduct verbal interactions
1.3- Acquisition and processing Explanations Some universals have psychological explanations that have no physical basis, such as word order are necessary because it makes it easier for the child to acquire language. This can be thought as being the main reason for that Chomsky's approach to language universals, as we will see later.
1.4- Social Explanation Some universals have basis on cognition and others reflect the fact that language is a social tool. For example there are 1st and 2nd person pronouns as default, this is because language is used by two people during face-to- face cognition.
2- Approaches to Language Universals Now we are going to see how the two approaches to language universals are put forward by Chomsky and J. Greenberg.
2.1- Two Major Approaches There are two major approaches to language universals proposed by Noam Chomsky and Harold Joseph. Greenberg, namely the Chomskyan and Greenbergian approach. The aims and the major focusing points of these two approaches can be identified as following.
2.1.1- Chomskyan approach As we have mentioned at the introduction part there are two major approaches to language universals. The first one is the Chomskyan approach. Although our main focus will be on Greenberg's reference of the term of language universals, we should also mention here what this term means according to Chomsky. N. Chomsky in his theory claims that since every human being has the language ability innately so that s/he can acquire the large amount of knowledge by hearing just a part of it without enough experience, there is and has to be some genetic determinacy that makes the phenomenon possible. And he claims that as N. Smith (1999:43) mentions: "our intuitions are due in part to language principles.". Smith (1999:44) also explains the term universal according to Chomsky as: The term 'universals' allows of many different interpretations, several of which have been used within linguistics. At the most superficial level, but still not without interest, it reminds us that all human languages exploit the same vocabulary of elements: consonants, and vowels, nouns, verbs, and clauses and so on. There is some variation from language to language: all languages have consonants only some have fricatives (such as "f" and "v" in English.); all of them use nouns and verbs, only some of them have articles, adjectives, or classifiers and complementisers. Linguistic theory must then provide a means for describing all of these in the form of a universal inventory of a possible elements: the inventory is universal in the sense that it is rich enough to allow for the universe of languages, not that each language exploits all the possibilities. From the explanation above it is easily understood that Chomsky is talking about the universals that are common on to all human beings in the initial state of the language in the human mind. His main ideas of these universals are stated by R. P. Botha as: Chomsky (1980a: 29) takes universal grammar to be' a study of the biologically necessary. These are genetically determined properties that are, in Chomsky's (1980a: 28) words, 'characteristic of the human species. ' As the basic statements making up the theory of grammar or universal grammar, Chomskyan linguistic universals thus express claims about biologically necessary properties of human language Another important point to mention here is that Chomsky differentiates from Greenberg in methodological approaches to language universals as we are going to discuss in the next sections.
Joseph Greenberg - Biography
Joseph Harold Greenberg (May 28, 1915 - May 7, 2001) was a prominent andcontroversial American linguist, principally known for his work in two areas, linguistic typology and the genet c classification of languages.
Early life and career
Greenberg was born on May 28, 1915 to Jewish parents in Brooklyn, New York. His first love was music. At the age of 14, he gave a piano concert at Steinway Hall. He continued to play the piano daily throughout his life. After finishing high school, he decided to pursue a scholarly career rather than a musical one. He enrolled at Columbia University in New York. In his senior year, he attended a class taught by Franz Boas on American Ind an languages. With references from Boas and Ruth Benedict, he was accèpted as a graduate student by Melville J. Herskovits at Northwestern University in Chicago. In the course of his graduate studies, Greenberg did fieldwork among the Hausa of Nigeria, where he learned the Hausa language. The subject of his doctoral dissertation was the influence of Islam on a Hausa group that, unlike most others, had not converted to it. In 1940, he began postdoctoral studies at Yale University. These were interrupted by service in the U. S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, where he worked as a codebreaker and participated in the landing at Casablanca. Before leaving for Europe, he married Selma Berkowitz, whom he had met during his first year at Columbia. After the war, Greenberg taught at the University of Minnesota before returning to Columbia University in 1948 as a teacher of anthropology. While in New York, he became acquainted with Roman Jakobson and André Martinet. They introduced him to the Prague school of structuralism, which influenced his work. In 1962, Greenberg moved to the anthropology department of Stanford University in California, where he continued to work for the rest of his life. In 1965 Greenberg served as president of the African Studies Associator Contributions to linguistics
Linguistic typology
Greenberg's reputation rests in part on his contributions to synchronic linguistics and the quest to identify linguistic universals. In the late 1950s, Greenberg began to examine corpora of languages covering a wide geographic and genetic distribution. He located a number of interesting potential universals as well as many strong cross-linguistic tendencies. In particular, Greenberg invented the notion of "implicational universal", which" takes the form, "if a language has structure X, then it must also have structure Y." For example, X might be "mid front rounded vowels" and Y "high front rounded vowels" (for terminology see phonetics). This kind of resea h was taken up by many scholars following Greenberg's example and remains important in synchronic linguistics. Like Noam Chomsky, Greenberg sought to discover the universal structures underlying human language. Unlike Chomsky, Greenberg's approach was empirical rather than logico-deductive. Greenberg's approach, often characterized as "functionalist", is commonly opposed to Chomsky's rationalist approach. An argument to reconcile the Greenbergian and Chomskyan appraathes can be found in Linguistic Universals, edited by Ricardo Mairal and Juana Cil (2006). Many who are strongly opposed to Greenberg's methods of language classification (see below) nevertheless acknowledge the importance of his typological work. In 1963 he published an article that was extremely influential in the field: "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the other of meaningful elements".