Easing communication
22:41:13 UTC +0000 20-Nov-2025
IL PORTALE LINGUISTICO ITALIANO
HOME ARTICOLI DIZIONARI ON-LINE FORUM LINKS MERCATINO PROFESSIONISTI CHI SIAMO
SYLLABOS.COM - UNIVERSALS OF LANGUAGE

Universals of Language
by
Nicola Nobili


What is linguistic theory if not the attempt to discover what is common to all languages, what is essential in the notion "natural language", what are the limits within which languages can vary, what are the (universal!) terms by means of which this variation can be described?
E. Bach & R.T. Harms, Preface to Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, 1968, p. VI.


0. Definition and Origins
1. Basic Assumptions
2. Universals of Language: Epistemological Issues
3. Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Acknowledgements


0. Definition and Origins

The theory of Universals of Language maintains that certain linguistic features are present in all the world's languages.
The idea of a common element in all human languages is extremely old. The first and best-known example of this is the myth of the Babel tower (Genesis: 11, 1- 9), which postulates the existence of one primitive language (Hebrew), from which all the other languages have allegedly derived. This myth is very famous and for centuries it was assumed as a starting point by many pseudo-linguistic works; however it has very little scientific value.
Throughout the Middle Ages, philosophers and scientists expressed the belief that, although grammars can vary, they can all be reconnected to a grammatica universalis, i.e. a universal grammar. (Jakobson, 1976). In the XIII century, Ruggero Bacone stated that:
Grammatica una et eadem est secundum substantia in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietur . (Wallerand, 1913, 43)(1).
The first attempts to determine the structure of a universal grammar were made during the Renaissance by Descartes and his followers (Dubois et al., 1979), but their studies were merely philosophical and biased by the inflated importance they attributed to French, therefore their works did not manage to acquire any scientifically reliable status.
The first linguistic observations on the surprising similarities between apparently unrelated languages were made in the Eighteenth century by Sir William Jones (Pinker, 1994), who noticed some regularities in the comparisons of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek and several other contemporary languages. These remarks triggered the idea of a common origin for all Indo-European languages.
It was only in the 1960s, however, when the works of Chomsky and the generative grammar paved the way for this kind of research, that the theory of Universals of Language gained momentum. In fact, Chomsky stated that children, regardless of their ethnical groups and birthplaces, acquire their mother languages in the same way, because all human beings are endowed with a common Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982; Robins, 1967). At that time linguists started to assume that if all human beings share the basis of language, then all languages might have some characteristics in common.

1. Basic Assumptions

It is necessary to clarify the stance that will be expressed in the present work. First of all, it will be assumed that the existence of practical Universals of Language cannot be proved. The term "Universal", used for the sake of convenience, is to be considered a general tendency (2), i.e. something applicable to a large number of languages, but to which a few exceptions can also be found. This postulate apparently contrasts with scientific methodology: a scientific law is supposed to be valid only if no exceptions to it can be proved. However, in linguistics a slightly different approach must be applied, since almost every rule elaborated by this discipline is subject to exceptions, e.g. how to form the plural or the past tense in English (Comrie, 1981). The denial of any rule that does not prove applicable in 100% of cases would limit the concept of Universals of Translation to mere pseudo-linguistic speculation.
According to the author of this essay, it is plausible to admit the existence of Universals of Language, since the whole human race shares a common reality in which it lives and which certainly has a strong influence on the language. The lack of accurate data to strengthen the validity of the studies conducted until now is not to be interpreted as a pretext to deny this fascinating theory.

2. Universals of Language: Epistemological Issues

A summary of what has been discovered until now about the nature of Universals of Language will be given in this chapter. Universals can be divided into two broad categories: implicational and non- implicational. The latter consists of those Universals that do not refer to any particular characteristic of the given language(s). For instance, the statements
No language can make the interrogative form by reversing the order of all the words in a sentence (Comrie, 1981; Greenberg, 1976a)
or
Every language has two distinguished words for "father" and "mother" (Greenberg, 1966)
are true regardless of the structures of any particular language. Unfortunately, such universals are very few and tend to be rather abstract or general, therefore their practical application is scarce. Besides that, non-implicational Universals can generally identify the absence of a certain feature, rather then its presence. Most of the Universals of Language identified until now are implicational (Greenberg, 1966). This means that they can be expressed by the following logical scheme:
If a language has a given characteristic (p), then it also has another characteristic (q).
These Universals are more practical in nature, although they are subject to a limited number of exceptions. All the forty-five Universals identified by Greenberg (1976b), which have always been considered the basis of every successive work in this field, belong to this category. It should not escape the reader's attention, however, that Greenberg himself invited the readership to be very cautious about his Universals, since his studies were temporary in nature. In the last few decades, many linguists carried out comparative studies and experiments, applied to a wide number of different languages, with the aim of proving the existence of Universals of Language and determining their possible typologies. All such works have failed to reach incontestable results, because of certain structural problems lying at their foundations:
  • It is not possible to take into consideration all the languages in the world, because of the difficulty to distinguish between closely related languages or between a language and its dialect, and because there is no way to be sure that the languages linguists are aware of account for the whole population of the world. Moreover, a vast number of languages cannot be included in any study because they have disappeared without leaving any trace.
  • Since languages are, by definition, constantly changing, a Universal which is valid today might lose its global applicability in the future (Comrie, 1981).
  • The vast majority of the studies in question were carried out by scientists whose mother tongues are either an Indo-European language or a south-eastern Asian one, and they concentrated mainly on the languages of these areas. African, American and Australian languages, which differ considerably from the languages traditionally studied (and therefore could more easily refute the theory of "Universals" of Language), have started to be taken into consideration only in recent times (Comrie, 1981).
    Such non-ideal conditions limit somehow the importance Universals of Language have acquired until now. Nevertheless, this linguistic theory is an interesting field of study, which could prove extremely useful for the following reasons:
  • It can contribute to improving language teaching, by identifying elements which are identical in all languages and which therefore do not require further explanations.
  • It can strengthen the theory of a common origin for the whole human kind; this observation could be immensely meaningful for several sciences (sociology, anthropology, etc.) and it would establish the ideal basis for the conception of a universal ethic code (Greenberg, 1966(3) ).

    3. Conclusion

    As indicated throughout the present work, the theory of Universals of Language is a very interesting one. Unluckily, the relevant research is still in its infancy, therefore it has not managed to reach any major achievement yet. However, it is very plausible to assume that Universals or quasi-Universals exist and that the development of this field could prove very meaningful in the near future.

    Bibliography

  • Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Oxford, Blackwell. Italian version: Universali del linguaggio e tipologia linguistica. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1983.
  • Dubois et al. (1979). Italian version: Dizionario di Linguistica. Bologna, Zanichelli.
  • Dulai, Heidi; Burt, Marina; Krashen, Stephen (1982). Language Two. Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press.
  • Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). (ed. Alberto Nocentini). Universali del linguaggio. (based upon the article Language Universals (1964), in Current Trends in Linguistics, III), Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1975.
  • Greenberg, Joseph H. (1976a). Alcuni universali della grammatica con particolare riferimento all'ordine degli elementi significativi. In Ramat, Paolo (ed), La tipologia linguistica.. Bologna, Il Mulino, pp.114-154.
  • Greenberg, Joseph H. (1976b). Un approccio quantitativo alla tipologia morfologica della lingua. In Ramat, Paolo (ed), La tipologia linguistica.. Bologna, Il Mulino, pp.171-192.
  • Jakobson, Roman. Implicazioni degli universali linguistici per la linguistica. In Ramat, Paolo (ed), La tipologia linguistica.. Bologna, Il Mulino, pp.155-170.
  • Jespersen. Otto (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London, Allen & Unwin.
  • Jespersen, Otto (1946). Mankind, Nation and Individual. From a Linguistic Point of View. London, Allen & Unwin. Italian Version: Umanità, nazione ed individuo dal punto di vista linguistico. Milano, Feltrinelli, 1965.
  • Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. Middlesex. Penguin Books.
  • Robins, Robert H. (1967). A Short History of Linguistics. London, Longmans. Italian Version: Storia della linguistica.. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1995.
  • Wallerand, G. (1913). Les oeuvres de Siger de Coutrai, Louvain.

    Acknowledgements

    I would like to thank the following people, without whom it would have been much more complicated for me to write this essay:
    The librarians of the "Villa Spada" library in Bologna, for their kindness and their suggestions.
    Mr. Stewart, for introducing me to this beautiful field of investigation.
    Last but not least, my Dearest Rossella, for letting me use her printer and for the patience she showed the many times I was obliged to tell her: "Sorry, Honey, we can't meet tonight: I must work on Mr. Stewart's assignment".
    Bologna, January-February 1999

    NOTES


    (1) The grammar is just one and it is present in every language, although it may by chance vary [my translation].
    (2) Some scholars prefer to use the term "statistical universals", but I opted for another denomination because it seems easier to understand and because the term "statistical" can be misleading (see Comrie, 1981, 2.3).
    (3) È proprio questa possibilità di motivazione che determina l'interesse degli universali empirici, non soltanto per la linguistica, ma per tutte le scienze dell'uomo. [Coseriu, in Greenberg, 1966; I underlined the last part].

    1999 All Rights Reserved.