Bichakjian (2000): "... languages have been steadily replacing the ancestral implements with ever more advantageous alternatives (linguistically more powerful and biologically less costly),..."

Bernard H. Bichakjian hizkuntalariak zioén an bere "Reply to Suddendorf on Bichakjian on Language-Complexity" (2000):

My target article, which showed that, ... languages have been steadily replacing the ancestral implements with ever more advantageous altenatives (linguistically more powerful and biologically less costly), provided data that clearly suggest there is no empirical support for the steady state conception, and that language evolution is a gradual process with roots going very far back in time. Indeed, just as industry started with primitive tools and weapons and steadily evolved into the sophisticated hardware available to us to day, so language began with an improvised set of features which consistently remodelled into ever more efficient instruments of thought and communication.[Bichakjian, "Language Origin and Language Evolution", Psycoloquy, 2000]

eta referituz ki kontrastea artén sintaxi buruazkena eta sintaxi burulehena (zeini deitzen dión the modern word order), egiten ditú ondoko reflexioak (an bere artikulua titúlatzen "Language evolution and the complexity criterion", 1999): 

The shift from the head-last to the head-first order constitutes an important step in the expression of thought and thence in thinking itself. The ancient order is based on a global perception and requires a processing that is also global. The sequence victoriam reportavit or aere perennius can only be interpreted when the entire utterance has been heard, i.e., when the phrase-final head has been uttered. Instead, in the head-first languages, the analysis begins immediately and goes on as the modifiers unfold. The ancient model requires therefore a global interpretation, whereas the modern one lends itself to a progressive analysis.

...

The modern word order has therefore a double advantage: in the first place, it allows for the coding and decoding of linguistic messages with a minimum of mental effort, since it taxes the working memory of speakers and listeners as little as possible; and, in the second place, because the processing of linguistic messages is facilitated, it makes it possible to conceive and express increasingly more complex thoughts.  [Bichakjian, "Language Evolution and the Complexity Criterion", Psycoloquy, 1999]

Gauza da ze prozesu gradual horretan munduko mintzaira guztiek ez dutela iritsi ber estadioa simultaneoki (nola nahiago genuken), halako moduan ze gaur egun, suerte txarrez, existitzen dirá diferentzia ondo nabarmenak artén erraztasun komunikatiboak zein sintaxi ezberdinek eskaintzen dituzten. Eta soluzioa soilik datorke ti jarráitu bidea an norabide egokia harik irítsí estadio sintaktiko bat non diferentziak ez diren jada esanguratsuak (behar dirá aukera burulehen funtzionalak). Bichakjian-ek dioenez (ikus goragoko aipua):

Indeed, just as industry started with primitive tools and weapons and steadily evolved into the sophisticated hardware available to us to day, so ... [Bichakjian, 2000]

Edonola ere, esan behar da ze, teknologia linguistikoak bádu konponente oso inportante bat zein den ezberdina respektu beste teknologia edo erreminta batzuk: konponente soziala, halan ze bere evoluzioa ez da hain erraza, nahiz, gure ikuspegitik, ez den hain zaila ere, eta dudagabe, eman daitezke aurrerapusu oso errazak, emanez bide ki beste aurrerapusu batzuk... (gradualki, asmoz eta jakitez). [1334] [>>>] [A9] [A10] [A11]

Newmeyer (1998): 'I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV.'

Atzoko sarreran ikusten genuen idatzi bat non Bingfu Lu (1998) zíon erantuzten ki mezu bat ga (ganik, ganika, ganikan) Newmwyer hizkuntzalaria (1998), nork, atzo ikusten genuenez, zioén hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Ikus daigun orain Newmeyer-en idatzi osoa (1998):

Matthew Dryer has shown that, once we correct for areal and genetic bias, the 'preference' for OV order is greater than that for VO order in the world's languages. But interestingly, I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV. 

My first question is how widely accepted is such a claim among historical linguists and typologists? Is there much support for such an idea and its implication of an overall general 'drift' from OV to VO? 

If this claim seems well motivated, the conjunction of the 'preference' for OV and the 'drift' to VO is very curious, no? One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of directions (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines. 

Gauza da ze, izánik interesgarriak gaur egungo maiztasun estatikoak buruz hitz-ordenak, askoz interesgarriagoak dirá datu dinamikoak buruz nóndik, norántza eta zéin baldintzetan joan diren evoluzionatzen sintaxiak zehar historia (ez soilik evoluzioak, baizik-ere evoluzio horien baldintza diferenteak). Izan ere, maiztasun estatikoak soilik dira puntu bat, azken puntua, azken argazkia atérea ki fluxu evolutibo bat zeintaz bádugun informazio dinamiko kualitatiboa, ondo relevantea, zein, jakina, ez genuken ahaztu behar an gure analisiak. [⇶]

Mikel Mendizabal Ituarte: "Hizkuntzen berdintasun komunikatiboa: mitoa ala errealitatea?"

Zaila izaten da topatzea linguista ortodoxoak zein sar daitezen an debatea gain desberdintasun funtzionala on sintaxiak (hizkuntzak). Horrexegatik oso eskergarria da irakurtzea liburu bat non bi hizkuntzalari ortodoxo bezain ezagun saiatzen diran defenditzen euren posizio berdintzailea (Miren Azkarate eta Moreno Cabrera: zinez eskerrak bioi). Zorionak ki autorea, Mikel Mendizabal Ituarte.

Debatearen beste aldean, posizio heterodoxoan, irakurleak aurkituko dú Bernard Bichakjian hizkuntzalaria, zein ez den hain ezaguna nola goiko biak, nahiz izán autorea on oso referentzia garrantzitsuak an topikoa zek gaitún okupatzen. Azkenik, nik neuk ere egin dut nire ekarpena, zeintan erabili ditudan zenbait baliabide prepositibo, batzuk euskaratik hartuak, eta beste batzuk euskaratik eratorriak.

Apárte material hori zein den publikatu, artikulugile batzuek idatzi dituzté zenbait erantzun (bigarren txanda batean) zein ez diren publikatu afin ez luzatu liburua, nahiz berez izán oso interesgarriak ki valoratu zéin den ekarpen bakoitzaren kalitate zientifikoa. Blog honetan saiatuko gara komentatzen zerbait respektu erantzun horiek.

Tituluan esan bezala, liburua deitzen dá "Hizkuntzen berdintasun komunikatiboa: mitoa ala errealitatea?" (Mendizabal, 2014) eta argitaratu da an Utriusque Vasconiae (zorionak ki Utriusque Vasconiae ere). Hauxe da azala:

On egin! [197] [⇶]

Kintana jauna: zure kritika (edo dena delakoa) ez da serioa

Gure hizkuntzalari eta akademiko Xabier Kintana-k dio:

... ez baitut uste, "etxe horretan" esateko "an etxe hori" bezalakoak idazten dituena inori maisu-irakaspenik emateko dagoenik.

Xabier Kintana-k hartu du adibide ezin sinpleago (non ez den ongi ikusten kontua) afin desitxuratu bide garakor bat zeinen izateko arrazoia dén diskursiboa (nahizta, behin baliabide bat hizkuntzan sartuz gero, halako kasu sinpleetan ere erabiliko zen libertade osoz, jakina).

Hori da nola frogatu nahi izatea ze "zeren" kausala ez da beharrezkoa zeren ez luken zentzurik esátea "zeren bainaiz satsua", zein den agertzen an Etxepare (1545) (edo, idatzi beharko genuke "in Etxepare (1545)"?). Bistan da: "zeren" baliabideak nabarmentzen dá noiz aurkéztu perpaus luze edo konplexuagoak, nola onartzen duén Txillardegi-k berak ere:

Onartu beharra dago, beraz; batez ere, denaz gain, perpausa luzeetan eskaintzen dituen aukera aberatsengatik. Txillardegi, Euskal Gramatika, 1979:400]

Bichakjian-ek dio (an "Language Evolution and the Complexity Criterion", 1999):

The advantage of the modern order is hardly apparent if we compare brief segments such as 'victoriam reportavit' and 'he won a victory', or the Engl . 'a red ball' and the Fr. 'un ballon rouge'. But the important advantage of a technique, however, is not to do the simple things drastically better, but to achieve what was out of reach or to produce easily what required considerable effort. The advantage of an internal combustion engine over the sprocket wheel of a bicycle is negligible when it is matter of going to the corner store for a quart of milk, but it becomes noticeable when pounds of groceries are to be hauled from a distant supermarket. Likewise, if a comparison is made between the following sentences, where the first one uses head-last structures and the second their head-first equivalents, it quickly becomes apparent that sentence 1, though formally correct, is in fact difficult to decode and ambiguous, whereas sentence 2 does not present any problem, neither for the speaker nor the listener.

1. (The dog chased) the cheese eating mouse catching cat.

2. (The dog chased) the cat that caught the mouse that was eating the cheese.

Similar restrictions occur in German, where the head-last order is a must in subordinate clauses (3), but becomes impossible when the modifier is an embedded sentence (4).

3. Ich glaube, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat lit. 'I believe that John the book read has'

4. *Ich weiss, dass du, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat, glaubst lit. 'I know that you that John the book read has believe'

In those cases, German abandons the canonical head-last order and uses instead the more manageable head-first alternative (5).

5. Ich weiss, dass du glaubst, dass Heinz das Buch gelesen hat lit. 'I know that you believe that John the book read has'

(cf. Bach et al. 1986; and Kempen 1996 for corroborating psycholinguistic evidence).

Beraz, Kintana-k kritika serioa eta argumentatua egin nahi badu, har ditzala adibide representatiboak eta eman ditzala argumentuak, eta ez zeharkako komentarioak zek ez dioten ezer ere aportatzen ki eztabaida (ikus "Euskararen garabideak" eta blog hau). Adibide bat: nóla emanen luke Xabier Kintana-k ondoko gutunaren aurreneko paragrafoa?



Ez da dudarik ze aditza aurreratzea oso egokia da asko eta askotan, hala nola ze euskara estandarrean desagertu beharko litzake galdegaiaren araua.

Ez da dudarik ze bádira euskararen tradizioan baliabide batzuk zein diren oso interesgarriak afin lortu emaitza progresiboagoa, eta zein, praktikan, bazterturik dauden an euskara estandarra, hala nola adibidez "zein" erlatibo murrizgarria edo "ezi" konparatiboa.

Ez da dudarik ze bádira beste baliabide batzuk zein, gutxi erabili badira ere, bádauden eskura, hala nola adibidez "afin" finala, "bitartean-eta" denborazkoa, edo "kontra" prepositiboa, zein erabiltzen dén iragarriz pilota-partidak (ez dakigu Kintana-k zer pensatuko duen burúz erabilera hori).

Ez da dudarik ze, antzera nola "baizik" prepositiboa oso erabilgarria den, berdin ere izan litezke erabilgarriak (baldin eskura baleude) beste antzeko baliabide desdoblatu batzuk nola "burúz", edo "artén", edo "kin", edo "on", edo "an", zein, jakina, konbinatu daitezke kin beste baliabide guztiak (postpositiboak barne) afin lortu soluzio komunikatibo abantailatsuak.

Beste kontu bat da ritmoa, zéin ritmotan gertatu behar dén garapen-prozesu hori (ikus beherago gure komentario bat non diogun ze tresna horiek bultzatu beharko liraké gradualki, baina galdera da: zéin da ritmo gradual optimoa?): hor egon ahal da duda gehiago, eta akaso hor zentratu beharko litzake debatea (edo dena delako hau). [63] [>>>]