To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

Linguistic Capacity and Hybridity

Abstract
The present paper offers evidence in support of the claim that hybridity is intrinsic to linguistic
capacity, and thus licensed within the architecture of Universal Grammar. The main line of
argumentation of the paper is that insofar as grammars allow for inconsistency in the application
of processes/ constraints, exceptions to generalizations and irregularities, and considerations for
both natural and communicative aspects in structuring information, impurity and hybridity should
be expected in natural languages. The paper brings up evidence from the following areas for
substantiation of the claim- the Elsewhere Condition or Panini‟s Theorem, Usage-over-Grammar
principle, and the Point of View operator.

0. Introduction

The main aim of the present paper is to bring up evidence in support of the claim
that impurity and hybridity are intrinsic to linguistic capacity, and thus licensed
within the architecture of Universal Grammar. The main line of argumentation is
that insofar as grammars admit natural and universal properties of languages as
well as exceptions, irregularities, inconsistent application of processes and
constraints hybridity is expected to surface in natural languages. The paper brings
up evidence from those two areas for substantiating the claim.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 1 presents an introduction to the issue of

internal disposition for hybridity. Sections 2-5 discuss the evidence for the internal
disposition for change and variation in grammars from three principles of grammar-
the Elsewhere Condition, the Usage over Grammar Principle, and the Point of View
Operator. Section 6 presents the discussion and conclusion.

1. Internal disposition for hybridity

The general assumption about hybridity in language is that it is externally induced,

owing to contact between different communities. On close considerations, it can be

1
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

shown that hybridity is not merely externally induced, but also ingrained in human
linguistic capacity.

One of the strongest expressions of the view regarding the significance of the study
of linguistic capacity for the essential properties of language came from the great
German linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt, whose ideas have influenced most modern
linguists. Chomsky’s writings (e.g. Chomsky 1965, 1986) are full of
acknowledgement of Humboldt’s seminal views on linguistic creativity. I reproduce
below two quotations from Humboldt from amongst a large body of writings that
are pertinent to the topic of this paper.

“All individual languages belong together, all their particular characteristics,

however different from one another, come together in man’s capacity for
language. This capacity is the central point in the study of language.”
(“Alle einzelnen Sprachen finden sich zusammen, alle noch so entegegenstzte

Eigenthümlichkeiten vereinigen sich in dem Sprachvermögen des Menschen.

Dieses Vermögen ist der Mittelpunkt des Sprachstudiums” (Gesamellte
Schriften 4:242)

“Language can be compared to an enormous web, in which each part stands

in a more or less clearly recognizable relationship with the next one and all of
them are likewise related to the whole.”(Humbold: 1836:72)

Humboldt was of the view (and we find its echo in Saussure and Jakobson, among
others) that a language is driven by two forces- of ‘inertia’ and of ‘energeia’- that
lend it the character of a system that is in constant change. All properties of natural
language are reflective of man’s creativity and have their source there. The internal
organic structure of language provides the essential condition for the incorporation
of linguistic borrowings, as parts of an integrated whole, rather than ‘ungeformter
Stoff’ (1836:48).

In what follows, I wish to take three areas from linguistic structure that provide
evidence for the claim that hybridity arises from the intrinsic properties of linguistic
knowledge.

2
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

2. Elsewhere Condition or Panini‟s Theorem

One of the puzzles from the point of view of learnability of grammars (see Baker 1979,
Dell 1981) is the persistence in grammars of exceptions, minor regularities („subrules‟)
and optional rules. Grammars with exceptions and irregularities are more complex than
grammars without them, and optional rule applications lead to over-inclusive grammars,
that is, grammars that contain both correct and incorrect outputs. As noted in Pandey
(2001:284), “...considering the enormity of the deductive gap between the primary
linguistic data and the adult intuitions that he (sic) has to acquire, why does a child finally
go for a complex grammar? It is difficult to find an answer that assumes a solipsistic view
of grammar. The only plausible raison d‟être for exceptions and optional rule application
in the grammar is the cognizance of alterity- other speakers and other forms. ”

It is interesting to note that within the grammar all exceptions, irregularities, and
minor regularities are in precedence relation with general regularities relating to a
given structural description. Within the Indian grammatical tradition, Panini
(Asṭādhāyī 1.4.2) enjoined the former to precede the latter. Vipratiśedhe param
kāryam (‘In the situation of a conflict, apply the latter’). The rule is interpreted to
mean that given two rules, a general rule and a specific rule, applying to an identical
input, the more specific rule, should apply first. In Panini’s grammar, specific rules
are ordered following general rules. This convention regarding rule application has
been called the Elsewhere Condition by Kiparsky (1982: 136-7), and is stated as
follows:

(1) The Elsewhere Condition:

Rules A, B in the same component apply disjunctively to a form Ø if and only

if
(i) The structural description of A (the special rule) properly includes the
structural description of B (the general rule)
(ii) The result of applying A to Ø is distinct from the result of applying B to Ø
In that case, A is applied first, and if it takes effect, then B is not applied.

3
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

One of the simplest examples for the universality of the application of the Elsewhere
Condition is the precedence of irregular affixation over regular affixation. For
instance, in English, the formation of irregular plurals such as mice, data, oxen and
men from the singular mouse, datum, ox and man must precede the formation of
regular plurals, such as houses and cars from the singular house and car. In the
theory of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1986), which deals with the
organization of phonological rules, all irregular facts of the morphology and
phonology of a grammar are organized at an earlier level than all the regular facts
processes. Why don’t forms such as mouse, datum, ox and man undergo the regular
plural rule? It is because the Elsewhere Condition blocks the regular rule from
applying to them since the more specific irregular rules have already applied.

The Elsewhere Condition has been renamed as Panini’s Theorem in Optimality

Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1993), in accordance with the revised conception of
grammars consisting of constraints rather than rules mediating the input and the
output levels of linguistic forms. Panini’s Theorem determines the higher ranking of
more specific constraints over more general constraints applying to an input.

The provision of a device such as the Elsewhere Condition or Panini‟s Theorem in

Universal Grammar, as claimed by both derivational and non-derivational approaches,
sanctions a collective view of linguistic knowledge, rather than a merely individualistic
one. Within a collective view of grammar, individual and social aspects of linguistic
knowledge, exemplified with regularity and variability, among other features, are
„integrated‟, that is, not merely juxtaposed, but inseparable. What are the main properties
of grammar in the integrationist view? These are two, in the main. One, both production
and comprehension are complementary aspects of linguistic capacity. Two, individual
and social points of view are incorporated in the organization of grammar.

4
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

4. Usage-over-Grammar Principle

Meanings of compound words are known to be troublesome for grammarians. In a lot of

cases, identical structures have different interpretations. There are countless examples of
this in languages. For instance, in English, the expression a dancing doll means „a doll
that dances/ is dancing‟, while a dancing teacher can mean „a teacher that dances/ is
dancing‟ as well as „a teacher of dancing‟. The latter meaning may be said to come from
usage.

Panini noted the fact that in compound formation grammatical considerations are
outweighed by the considerations of popular usage and spelled out an injunction (see also
Raja 1990:111) that allows popular usage to supersede derivationally derived meanings
of forms. The injunction is stated in the following rule (P. 1.2.56):
pradhaanapratyayaarthavacanamaarthasyaanyapramaaNatvaat

The rule can be segmented and glossed with the morphological and sentential meanings
as follows:
pradhaana-pratyaya-artha-vacanam, arthasya, anya-pramaaNa-tvaat

„main-suffix-meaning-statement, meaning-POSS, other evidence-ABL‟

„The meaning (of a statement) from usage ( „other‟) is stronger evidence than
meaning from (its) derivation („root-suffix‟)‟

The injunction can be called Usage-over-Grammar principle, stated as follows:

(2) Usage-over-Grammar Principle (or Panini’s Injunction):

In the case of competing meanings of output forms derived by grammatical rules and in
popular usage, usage supersedes derivation.

Both Panini‟s Theorem and Panini‟s Injunction relate to the precedence relation between
individual and social aspects of linguistic knowledge. Both assert the priority of the social
aspect in determining linguistic outputs.

5
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

5 Point of View Operator

Studies of some syntactic phenomena, such as Short Distance Pronouns (SDPs),

show that a descriptive account of them requires the positing of operators which
take scope over some domain that coincides with a syntactic constituent. The
operator may represent an entity other than the Subject.
Consider the examples of SDPs below, as discussed in Tenny (2004):

(3) Herbiei overheard his friend Lee call himi an idiot.

*Herbiei called himi an idiot.
Herbiei called himselfi an idiot.

Condition B of Chomsky 1981 (more or less)

(4) A pronoun must be free INSIDE its binding domain, which is (more or less) a clause.

However, the following sentences are acceptable, in spite of the violation of

Condition B of Chomsky 1981:

Locative NPs and PPs

(10) Johni has no covering over himi. Lees and Klima (1963)
Johni ignored the oil on himi. ”
Johni found a snake near himi. Lakoff (1986)
Maxi saw a gun near himi. Reinhart and Reuland (1993)
(11) Maxi pulled the cart towards himi. Reinhart and Reuland (1993)
Maxi rolled the carpet over himi. ”

Representational NPs

(12) Maxi likes jokes about himi. Reinhart and Reuland (1993)
Luciei saw a picture of heri. ”
Maxi heard a story about himi. ”

There exists a considerable body of literature reviewed in Tenny (2004) in the areas
of lexical semantics, morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse that attempt to
account for the data on SDP. The Point of View operator is one of them. Thus a
preposition such as behind in a sentence like the one below:
(5) Georgei had the sun behind himi

6
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

means something like 'spatially situated so as to be unavailable to the perceiving

orientation' (of some perceiving/sentient entity). Behind is a three-way relation:
(6) Behind (George, the sun, perceiver)

A Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) representation of behind is:

(7) [x behind y, according to z]

‘where z represents a necessarily sentient entity that is assigned the sentience role of
spatiotemporal perceiver.’

Admitting the significance of ‘according to Z’ gives cognizance to a sentient being.

Both at the sentence and at the discourse level, referring expressions can be sentient
(he, she) or non-sentient (it).
(8) Sondrai Sen-Opk[? put the box behind-k heri]

Tenny argues that the syntactic correlate of the scope of the sentient operator is the
Aspectual Phrase (see also Rizzi 1997), smaller than the VP and larger than the NP. The
argument structure of AspP has three parts: a path, a goal and a moved object (Tenny
2000).
(9) Sondrai Sen-Opk[AspP put the box behind-k heri]
Sondrai Sen-Opk[AspP dragged the box with-k heri]
Sondrai Sen-Opk[AspP carried her passport on-k heri]

An admission of the Point of View Operator in the grammar is an admission of the internal
disposition for the collective aspect of linguistic knowledge, where the other finds cognition.

6 Discussion and conclusion

It is interesting to note that the Paninian principles are relevant to current concern with
variability and change in language, especially those changes that are induced by language
contact. Thus there has been considerable reaction to a claim made that in a contact
language situation, when social factors and formal factors within a language are in
conflict, the social factors are the winner. Thomason and Kaufman (1988:4) state:
“...the history of a language is a function of the history of its speakers, and not an
independent phenomenon that can be thoroughly studied without reference to the social
context in which it is embedded. We certainly do not deny the importance of purely
linguistic factors such as the pattern pressure and Markedness considerations for a theory

7
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

of language change, but the evidence from language contact shows that they are easily
overridden when social factors push in another direction.”

Thomason (2008) reiterates the claim in response to the criticism focusing on the
structural constraints of change in contact situations, such as Silva-Corvalán (1994) and
King (2000). Without going into the debate, it is easy to see that the Paninian principles
of Elsewhere Condition and Usage-over-Grammar principle strongly support the claims
of Thomason & Kaufman. There is of course need to examine the issue, namely, the
resolution of conflict between social and formal forces in output change arising in contact
situations. The evidence from Paninian principles, with support from Thomason &
Kaufman, points in favour of the linguistic predisposition for hybridity.

On similar grounds, the Point of View Operator can be seen to provide support for
admitting both regular and external facts owing their allegiance to others, and thus
adding to the evidence for the internal disposition for hybridity. Any concern for the
Point of View operator (and the literature is growing large on this) provides
evidence for the communicative space for both the speaker and the addressee.
Ultimately, it provides evidence for communication as an essential property of
grammars besides the linguistic form. The two are not merely combined but
integrated in linguistic capacity. It is the recognition of the interlocutors in speech
that accounts for the intractable data on SDPs.

It is not easily obvious, but seems to me to be close to being true, that the data on
SDPs are representative of a general device of incorporating the role of interlocutors
in linguistic forms. All forms of code-mixing and code-switching that now have
general scientific legitimacy in linguistic research (see, e.g. Nicolaï and Comrie 2008)
must be shown to make crucial reference to the interlocutors in a speech act, along
with other possible sentient concerns.

Hybridity and other forms of impurity are thus an extension of the phenomena that
have sanctions in the linguistic capacity.
###

8
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

References

Baker, Carl L. 1979. Syntactic teory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry
10:533-581.
Chomsky, N 1986. Knowledge of Language: Structure and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. New York: Harper & Colins.
Dell, F. (1981). On the learnability of optional phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry
12: 31-37.
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter (2002). Person and Number in Pronouns: A feature-
geometric analysis. Language 8:3, 482–526.
Humboldt, W. von. (1949 [1836]). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen
Sprachbaues. Darmstadt: Classen & Roether.
King, R.(2000). The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, H.
& Smith, N. (eds) The structure of phonological representations (131-176).
Dordrecht: Foris.
Lakoff, G. (1986). Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In CLS-
22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory
at the Twenty-Second Annual Regional Meeting, pp 152-167, Chicago. Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Lees, R.B./Klima, E.S. (1963), Rules for English Pronominalization. Language 39(1),
17 28.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan R. Prince (1993). Prosodic Morphology: Constraint
Interaction and Satisfaction, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Technical Report 3
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Amsterdam: D. Reidel.
Nicolaï , R. and Comrie, B. (2008). Opening. Journal of Language Contact- THEMA 2: 1-5.
Pandey, P. (2001). Grammar and ‘others’. In Abbi, A., Gupta, R. S. and Kidwai, A.
(eds.), Linguistic structure and language dynamics in South Asia: Papers from
SALA XVIII Roundtable. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass. Pp. 277-90.

9
 To appear in Hybridity, a volume of seminar papers from Hamburg U, JNU and Delhi U.

Raja, K. (1990). Philosophical elements in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi. In H. G. Coward & K.

K. Raja (eds.), Encyclopedias in Indian Philosophies. New Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidass.111-113.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:4, 657–720.
Robins, R. H. (1987). Grobritannien: Wilhelm von Humboldt’s notion of linguistic
creativity. In W. Bahner et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIV International
Congress of Llinguists. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
Tenny, C. (2004) Pronoun binding and the grammar of sentience. Workshop on Semantic
Approaches to Binding Theory August,16-20, 2004, ESSLLI 2004, Université Henri
Poincaré, Nancy.
Thomason, S. & T. Kaufman. (1988). Language Contact. Creolization and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Thomason, S. (2001). Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.

Pramod Pandey
Centre for Linguistics
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi 110067 India
pkspandey@yahoo.com

10