ostirala, uztaila 01, 2022

Tomlin (1986): "... data from single languages could not constitute sufficient counterevidence to refute a language-general principle."

Gogora gaitezen nóla an:

genioen ze ...

...  Dryer-ek, an bere papera e 1980, ...

... eskaini zigún argumentazio bat zein oinarritzen zen an bi premisa afin iritsi ondorio bat:

... if there is a universal tendency for new information to occur in clause-final position, and if sentential NP's tend to be new information, then one would expect that sentential NP's would tend to occur in clause-final position. [Dryer, 1980:175]
nahiz gero zabaltzen zituén zenbait duda gain demostrabilitatea e premisa horiek:

Neither of the premises of the explanation are demonstrably true. [Dryer, 1980:175]

Hortaz, eta Dryer-en lehenengo premisari eutsiz,  ezin liteke demostratu ze existitzen da ...

... a universal tendency for new information to occur in clause-final position, ... [Dryer, 1980:175]
Beherago, Dryer-ek zehazten dú:

Furthermore, Creider (1975) and Tomlin and Rhodes (1979) present evidence that the tendency for new information to occur late in sentences may not be universal. Tomlin and Rhodes argue that the opposite tendency exists in Ojibwa. [Dryer, 1980:175]

Gaur zehaztu nahiko genuke ze ari gara mintzatzen gain tendentzia bat, tendentzia komunikatibo orokor bat, zeinen indarra doan handitzen (eta ondobidean nagusitzen) noiz behar linguistikoak handitzen diren, eta zeinen demostrabilitatea ez da kruzialki dependitzen ti kasu partikular zirkunstantzialak, zein, esana dugunez, linguistikan askotan (ia beti) gertatzen diren, justuki azpi baldintza partikular-zirkunstantzialak.

Esan nahi baita ze atzo ikusten genuen nóla munduan báziren 11 OVS sintaxi (azpi baldintza orohar aski partikularrak), baina horrek ez du ezeztatzen a existentzia e tendentzia komunikatibo orokor bat buruzki sintaxi progresiboak.  ...

Argudio horretaz mintzo da Tomlin noiz dioen an bere "Basic word order. Functional principles" (1986):

... data from single languages could not constitute sufficient counterevidence to refute a language-general principle. [Tomlin, 1986:130]

Justuki horren jarraian, Tomlin-ek emanen digú bere azalpena ("the principal reason"), zein ikusiko dugun bihar. Baina, báda, gure analisian, marko zabalago (eta azalgarriago) bat non kokatu behar den Tomlin-en azalpen nagusi hori, eta justuki marko horretaz mintzatu nahi genuke etzi.