Volume 25, Issue 1-2

This article offers a general discussion of the concept of universals in linguistics (and in general), spelling out different ways of understanding claims to universality and connecting such claims to other (often familiar) related distinctions, terminology and approaches such as competence and performance or I-language and E-language, evolutionary explanations, deep and surface universals, rationalism and empiricism or nature and nurture, realism and nominalism, parametric variation and tendencies, formal and functional approaches, properties or explanations, historical explanations, modularity and structural analogy, so-called meta patterns and minimalism.

Two traditions devoted to the formulation and explanation of syntactic universals coexist in the field of linguistics. The surface universals tradition draws inductive generalizations pertaining to easily observable surface features in the world's languages. By and large it seeks to account for the universals that it uncovers by means of external, typically function-based, explanations. The deep universals tradition is part-and-parcel of most approaches to generative grammar. The central constructs of that theory, including the set of categories posited and the form of the principles at work, are ipso facto ‘deep universals’ provided by an innate Universal Grammar. Many generative grammarians take the position that deep universals are central to the explanation of surface universals, though there is good reason to be skeptical of such an idea. While most linguists would welcome a rapprochement between the two approaches to universals, a number of conceptual and empirical barriers stand in the way of its realization.

This article asks what is universal about phonological systems. Beginning with universals of segment inventories, a distinction is drawn between descriptive universals (where the effect of different theoretical frameworks is minimized) vs. analytic universals (which are specific-theory-dependent). Since there are few absolute universals such as “all languages have stops” and “all languages have at least two degrees of vowel height”, theory-driven or “architectural” universals concerning distinctive features and syllable structure are also considered. Although several near-universals are also mentioned, the existence of conflicting “universal tendencies” and contradictory resolutions naturally leads into questions concerning the status of markedness and synchronic explanation in phonology. While diachrony is best at accounting for typologically unusual and language-specific phonological properties, the absolute universals discussed in this study are clearly grounded in synchrony.

This article surveys the state of the art in the field of semantic universals. We examine potential semantic universals in three areas: (i) the lexicon, (ii) semantic “glue” (functional morphemes and composition principles), and (iii) pragmatics. At the level of the lexicon, we find remarkably few convincing semantic universals. At the level of functional morphemes and composition principles, we discuss a number of promising constraints, most of which require further empirical testing and/or refinement. In the realm of pragmatics, we predict that Gricean mechanisms are universal, but suggest that the precise nature of presuppositions may be subject to cross-linguistic variation. Finally, we follow E.L. Keenan in concluding that the overarching universal of effability or translatability between languages cannot be upheld in its strongest form. A recurring theme throughout this survey is how much work still remains to be done in the relatively young field of cross-linguistic formal semantics.

This article offers a case study of three absolute universals ranging over inventories of person marking in morphology. Certain logically possible distinctions are never drawn in morpheme inventories (either as pronouns or as agreement markers), though these distinctions may be expressed in other ways (and hence are not impossible a priori or for reasons of general cognition). After reviewing the literature, and dismissing apparent counter-examples, I submit that these universals bear on issues of formal versus functional explanation in linguistics, and suggest that the functionalist explanations of these facts currently on offer fall short of the mark. At least in this domain, it appears that there is a universal inventory of features which delimits the range of possible “persons” in language.