Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Fischer, Olga / Norde, Muriel

4 Issues per year


Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.324
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.616

CiteScore 2017: 0.55

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.349
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.093


Folia Linguistica Historica
IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.529
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.525

Online
ISSN
1614-7308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 52, Issue 1

Issues

Transparent and non-transparent languages

Kees Hengeveld
  • Corresponding author
  • Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sterre Leufkens
Published Online: 2018-03-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0003

Abstract

Languages differ widely from one another in the extent to which they are transparent, i.e. obey one-to-one relationships between meaning and form. Transparency, in turn, is an important factor in the learnability of languages. This paper first sets out a framework for the study of transparency and subsequently studies cross-linguistic differences in transparency, using the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar as its point of departure. Transparent and non-transparent features of languages are systematically defined using the multi-level architecture of this model of language, representing them as mappings between and within levels. In applying this framework to a sample of 30 languages it is shown that the (non-)transparent features investigated can be ordered into an implicational transparency hierarchy, and that as a result the languages of the sample can be ranked in terms of their degrees of transparency as well. Finally, the consequences of these findings for the learnability of languages are discussed.

Keywords: transparency; learnability; typology; Functional Discourse Grammar

References

  • Aboh, Enoh O. & Norval S.H. Smith (eds.). 2009. Complex processes in new languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Aklilu, Yilma. 1988. The phonology and grammar of Sheko. MA thesis, Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University.Google Scholar

  • Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Dan I. Slobin. 1985. Acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. The data, 839–878. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Andersen, R. 1984. The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning 34.4. 77–95.Google Scholar

  • Andronov, Mikhail. 2004. A reference grammar of the Tamil language. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Ron. 1982. Tamil (Lingua Descriptive Studies 7). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band IV: Wortstellung-Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Eve V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71(3). 490–532.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter W. 2013. Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • De Houwer, Annick & Steven Gillis. 1998. Dutch child language: An overview. In Steven Gillis & Annick De Houwer (eds.), The acquisition of Dutch, 1–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • DeGraff, Michel. 2007. Kreyòl Ayisyen, or Haitian Creole (Creole French). In John Holm & Peter L. Patrick (eds.), Comparative creole syntax: Parallel outlines of 18 creole grammars, 101–126. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, R. 2005. What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(Supplement 1). 1–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Dunn, Michael John. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese: On the basis of a dialect of North Aceh (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 112). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Eaton, Helen. 2010. A Sandawe grammar (SIL e-Books 20). http://www-01.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/52718/52718_EatonH_Sandawe_Grammar.pdf.

  • Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-Wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Faraclas, Nicholas & Thomas B. Klein (eds.). 2009. Simplicity and Complexity in Creoles and Pidgins. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar

  • Foris, David Paul. 2000. A grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec (Studies in Chinantec Languages 6). Dallas: SIL International and The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

  • Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. Sydney: Croom Helm Australia.Google Scholar

  • Gary, Judith Olmsted & Saad Gamal-Eldin. 1981. Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 6). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Georg, Stefan. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak). Part 1: Introduction, phonology and morphology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Glaude, Herby. 2012. Aspects de la syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Paris: Anibwé.Google Scholar

  • Golla, Victor. 1960. Hupa grammar. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Golla, Victor. 1985. A short practical grammar of Hupa. Hoopa Valley: Hupa Language Programme.Google Scholar

  • Golla, Victor. 1996. Sketch of Hupa, an Athapaskan language. In Ives Goddard (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 17: Languages, 364–389. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar

  • Grández Ávila, Magaly. 2011. Language transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar: The case of Quechua. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 22–56.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 2009. An efficiency theory of complexity and related phenomena. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an involving variable, 252–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hellenthal, Anneke Christine. 2010. A grammar of Sheko. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony (Functional Grammar Series 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees. 2011a. Introduction: Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees. 2011b. Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 110–114.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hewitt, Brian G. 1979. Abkhaz (Lingua Descriptive Studies 2). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Hewitt, Brian G. 1995. Georgian. A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hill, Jane H. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley: University of California Publications.Google Scholar

  • Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz De Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque (Mouton Grammar library 9). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Keizer, M. Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian (Descriptive Grammars). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Klamer, Marian. 2003. A grammar of Teiwa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kortmann, Bernd & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.). 2012. Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lefebvre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brousseau. 2002. A grammar of Fongbe (Mouton Grammar Library 25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lefebvre, Claire, Hélène Magliore-Holly & Nanie Piou. 1982. Syntaxe de l’Haïtien. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Thomas. 1989. A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar

  • Leufkens, Sterre C. 2011. Kharia: A transparent language. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 75–95.Google Scholar

  • Leufkens, Sterre C. 2013. The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(2). 323–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Leufkens, Sterre C. 2015. Transparency in language: A typological approach. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, G.L. 1978. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 7th edn. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.

  • MacWhinney, B. 2005. A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 49–67. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir (Mouton Grammar Library 27). Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(3/4). 125–156.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, John. 2011. Linguistic simplicity and complexity: Why do languages undress? Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.). 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Laurel B. Preston (eds.). 2014. Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Noonan, Michael. 1992. A grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2009. A grammar of Upcountry Sri Lanka Malay. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2011. Transparency in Sri Lanka Malay. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 96–110.Google Scholar

  • Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia. A South Munda language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans. 1983. Transparent vs. functional coding of grammatical relations. Linguistische Berichte 86. 1–13.Google Scholar

  • Rijkhoff, Jan N.M. 2002. The Noun Phrase (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rijkhoff, Jan N.M., Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel. 1993. A method of language sampling. Studies in Language 17(1). 169–203.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • Sadock, Jerrold M. 2003. A grammar of Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic Inuttut). München: LINCOM.Google Scholar

  • Sampson, Geoffrey. 2009. A linguistic axiom challenged. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 2–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Schiffman, Harold F. 1999. Spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and in history. In J. Macnamara (ed.), Language learning and thought, 185–214. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan I. 1980. The repeated path between transparency and opacity in language. In Ursula Bellugi & Michael Studdert-Kennedy (eds.), Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form, 229–243. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie GmbH.Google Scholar

  • Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Staden, Miriam van. 2000. Tidore: A linguistic description of a language of the North Moluccas. Leiden University PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Steeman, Sander 2012. A grammar of Sandawe (PhD dissertation, Leiden University). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Sweet, Henry. 1899. The practical study of languages: A guide for teachers and learners. London: Dent.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huallaga Quechua). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Werner, Heinrich. 1997. Die ketische Sprache (Tungusco-Sibirica 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

  • Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Mapudungun. El habla Mapuche. Santiago (Chile): Centro de Estudios Públicos.Google Scholar

About the article

Revised: 2017-03-02

Received: 2017-08-13

Revised: 2017-09-21

Accepted: 2017-11-17

Published Online: 2018-03-29

Published in Print: 2018-03-26


Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 139–175, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0003.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in