This document discusses two major approaches to language universals proposed by Noam Chomsky and Joseph Greenberg. Chomsky's approach claims that language universals are innate properties of human language that allow humans to acquire language. Greenberg examined 30 languages and found general principles that govern all human languages, like morphologic and syntactic patterns. The two approaches differ in their data sources - Chomsky focuses on one language's abstract structures while Greenberg compares surface structures across many languages. They also propose different explanations for why language universals exist, like innate properties versus reflecting human cognition and social interaction.

1. 0. Introduction
When asked the question 'What may 'Universals of language refer to? the answer will most
probably be 'the features that are common to all human languages in the world' which is true.
As generally known all human beings speak and communicate by the use of a language that
cannot be found in any of the other species. There are generally estimated to be about 4000 to
6000 languages in the world. This number alone gives us the idea of the immense diversity of
languages of the world, but despite their differences, there also has to be an underlying unity to
human languages. Linguistic typology is the study of the structural variation within human
language with a view to establishing limits on this variation and seeking explanations for the
limits.
In this study we are going to see how the idea of language universals is put forward by different
approaches proposed by N. Chomsky and J.H. Greenberg and what different claims have been
made about these universals and at what points these diverge. And we are going to focus on the
ideas of Bernard Comrie while explaining how the two approaches differ and especially explain
and exemplify what kind of universals are proposed by J.H. Greenberg. We are going to also
mention Greenberg's generalizations on these universals.
1- Why do language universals exist?
The question of the reason why language universals exist playa a crucial role in determining the
approach one should accept so we will mention the reasons briefly. Finegan (1994) states there
are 4 main explanations for the existence of the language universals. These are:
1.1- Original Language Hypothesis
This hypothesis depends on the idea that all of the languages in the world derive historically
from the same language. But it does not seem to be logical for some factors that are stated by
Finegan (1994). First of all different groups that are not in contact developed language at the
same time. What is more even if they derived from the same language there is no proof or
disproof for the hypothesis. And the fundamental differences between the languages existent
today are another problem for supporting such a hypothesis.
1.2- Universals and perception
This hypothesis says that languages are symptoms of how all humans perceive the world and
conduct verbal interactions

2. 1.3- Acquisition and processing Explanations
Some universals have psychological explanations that have no physical basis, such as word order
are necessary because it makes it easier for the child to acquire language. This can be thought as
being the main reason for that Chomsky's approach to language universals, as we will see later.
1.4- Social Explanation
Some universals have basis on cognition and others reflect the fact that language is a social tool.
For example there are 1st and 2nd person pronouns as default, this is because language is used
by two people during face-to-face cognition.
2- Approaches to Language Universals
Now we are going to see how the two approaches to language universals are put forward by
Chomsky and J. Greenberg.
2.1- Two Major Approaches
There are two major approaches to language universals proposed by Noam Chomsky and Harold
Joseph. Greenberg, namely the Chomskyan and Greenbergian approach. The aims and the major
focusing points of these two approaches can be identified as following.
2.1.1- Chomskyan approach
As we have mentioned at the introduction part there are two major approaches to language
universals. The first one is the Chomskyan approach. Although our main focus will be on
Greenberg's reference of the term of language universals, we should also mention here what
this term means according to Chomsky. N. Chomsky in his theory claims that since every human
being has the language ability innately so that s/he can acquire the large amount of knowledge
by hearing just a part of it without enough experience, there is and has to be some genetic
determinacy that makes the phenomenon possible. And he claims that as N. Smith (1999:43)
mentions: "our intuitions are due in part to language principles.". Smith (1999:44) also explains
the term universal according to Chomsky as:

3. The term 'universals' allows of many different interpretations, several of which have been used
within linguistics. At the most superficial level, but still not without interest, it reminds us that all
human languages exploit the same vocabulary of elements: consonants, and vowels, nouns,
verbs, and clauses and so on. There is some variation from language to language: all languages
have consonants only some have fricatives (such as "f" and "v" in English.); all of them use nouns
and verbs, only some of them have articles, adjectives, or classifiers and complementizers.
Linguistic theory must then provide a means for describing all of these in the form of a universal
inventory of a possible elements: the inventory is universal in the sense that it is rich enough to
allow for the universe of languages, not that each language exploits all the possibilities.
From the explanation above it is easily understood that Chomsky is talking about the universals
that are common to all human beings in the initial state of the language in the human mind. His
main ideas of these universals are stated by R. P. Botha as:
Chomsky (1980a: 29) takes universal grammar to be ' a study of the biologically necessary. These
are genetically determined properties that are, in Chomsky's (1980a: 28) words, 'characteristic
of the human species.' As the basic statements making up the theory of grammar or universal
grammar, Chomskyan linguistic universals thus express claims about biologically necessary
properties of human language
Another important point to mention here is that Chomsky differentiates from Greenberg in
methodological approaches to language universals as we are going to discuss in the next
sections.
2.1.2- Greenbergian Approach
Different from Chomsky's Universal Grammar according to J. Greenberg the term "language
universals" refers to the general principles that govern all the spoken languages around the
world. Greenberg in his study examined the grammar of thirty languages from different
language families and different parts of the world and has found out that there are some rules
which govern the way languages work. These can be classified in different terms such as
morphologic universals, syntactic universals, semantic universals etc. The language universals
proposed by Greenberg in this respect serve a different point of view from Chomsky's. Finegan
(1994: ) states that language universals are of an important value in the study of language.
According to him these values can be listed as:

4. 1. Universals state what is possible in human language and what is not.
2. They help us to understand brain and principles that govern interpersonal communication in
all cultures.
3. They help us to understand what in the human brain and social organization of everyday life
enables people to communicate through language.
Finegan (1994) also mentions some cautions to postulate language universals. First of all he says
that universals are statements to the effect that some characteristics are found in all the worlds'
languages, while the others are not found in any. This can be exemplified by the possibility of
the existence of fricatives in a sound system of a language whereas there are no languages
without voiced consonants. And another caution for the postulates is that these universal
principles must be applicable to any human language from any language family. And one should
always have in mind that languages fulfill many functions and are part of the society. Therefore
some facts about human language should derive from these functions of language. For example
if there exists 'I' and 'You' as the basic pronoun it is because of the nature of the
communication. There has to be someone talking and one listening to the other.
2.2- How do the two approaches differ from each other?
Now we are going to see how the two approaches differentiate and what the methods they use
are.
B. Comrie (1981: 1) states the that the two approaches can be contrasted on a number of
parameters and states the most important of these as follows:
The data base for research on language universals (a wide range of languages, or just a single
language.); the degree of abstractness of analysis that is required in order to state language
universals (for instance, in terms of surface syntactic structures or in terms of deep syntactic
structures); and the kinds of explanations advanced for the existence of language
universals[which was stated in section 1. previously.]
Now we are going to have a look at what kind of differences these parameters create.

5. 2.2.1- The Data Base
We have mentioned that the two approaches to language universals have different kinds of
methods and the main reason for this is the way they consider and refer to the term 'universal'.
Among the varying parameters that the two approaches diverge is the database they use for
their argumentation. Chomsky supports the idea that as stated by Comrie (1981:1) "the best
way to learn about language universals is by the detailed study of an individual language."
Comrie also mentions that Chomsky has also "advocated stating language universals in terms of
abstract structures (such as deep syntactic structures within transformational-generative
syntax), and have tended to favor innateness as the explanation for language universals."
2.2.2- Degrees of Abstractness
The degree of abstractness that is involved in the way of stating language universals differ
between the two approaches. Comrie (1981:12) shortly states the difference as:
Within Chomsky's approach, language universals are primarily constraints on the relation
between abstract structures and more concrete structures, i.e. necessarily involve a
considerable degree of abstractness. In Greenberg's approach, on the other hand, universals are
stated primarily in terms of more concrete levels of analysis
That is to say Chomsky, since he deals with the deep structure rules and patterns of the
language his approach depends more on abstract structures, whereas Greenberg's approach
depends on the data collected from a number of worldwide languages.
2.3- Classification of Language Universals
In this section we are going to deal with different binary classifications of language universals
made by Chomsky and Greenberg.
2.3.1- Formal And Substantive Universal
This classification has been made by Chomsky. Formal Universals can be defined as a universal
of language, which pertains to the form of a grammar, can take. The modules of the theta

6. criterion, the head feature convention, the Binding principles of functional coherence are all
formal universals, which have been proposed in one theory of grammar to another.. On the
other hand , substantive universals area any formal object which universally present in
grammars, or at least available. It can be said that the main categories of the language forms the
substantive universals. Comrie (1981:15) states that "substantive universals delimit the class of
possible languages".
2.3.2- Implicational And Non-implicational Universals
Some universals are stated without the need of any references to any other properties of the
different languages. They do not require another property of the language in order to be
existent as a universal. For example, the fact that all languages have nouns, verbs and objects
and these would be used to form a sentence in some order is a non-implicational universal and
it stands as a statement which has its truth value without any need of some other state to be
realized. On the other hand in the case of implicational universals there is another universal,
mostly a non-implicational one, to be realized in a particular language. It can be said that the
existence of such kind of a universal in a language presupposes or bound to the existence of the
first one. This kind of a universal is easily recognized in the pattern due to the fact that they
have the single direction conditional phrase structure. (p => q where q=>p is invalid ) For
instance if there are three color terms in a language then the firs two ones would be black and
white where the third is necessarily red. One may here ask the question that "if there is an
implication and the rule is not assigned to all the languages in the world (e.g. there are
languages that have only two color terms black and white.) why should they exist?" whose
answer is that these are so explanatory in themselves and so regular in after getting the first
condition revealed that they cannot be ignored.
2.3.3- Absolute Universals and Tendencies
Another and last distinction between the kinds of universals is that of between absolute
universals and tendencies. An absolute universal is the one that has no counter arguments in
any of the world's languages. Such as " if a language has the VSO as the basic word order then it
has prepositions." This is an absolute universal because there are no languages with VSO word
order and postpositions in the world, namely it has no counter arguments. On the other hand
some times we may talk about some universals that are revealed in most of the languages but
has ,usually, a handful number of languages that do not obey this generalizations. e.g. nearly all
languages have nasal vowels. (Some Salishan languages have no nasal consonants.) n this
distinction it is again easily understood whether a universal is absolute or it is a tendency by
examining the structure of the statement. If a universal has terms that imply a possibility like
nearly all, most probably etc., then is said to be a tendency, on the other hand if the statement
lacks this kind of possibility telling terms and has terms like "all languages in the world etc. " it is

7. then an absolute universal.
2.3.4- Semantic, Phonological and Syntactic Universals
Except from the distinction that Comrie makes among the universals of language Finegan (1994)
also makes another distinction among universals which belong to different parts of linguistics
namely, semantic universals, phonologic and syntactic universals. Semantic universals are the
ones that govern the composition of the vocabulary of world's languages. e.g. body part terms,
animal names and verbs of sensory perception are of this kind. It is important to keep in mind
that the semantic universals deal with less marked, basic terms in language. For example it deals
with the existence of blue rather than the turquoise etc.
On the other hand as understood, phonological universals deal with the phonology of the
languages. For instance the fact that there exists high front unrounded vowel, a low vowel and a
high vowel at least in all languages, is this kind of a universal. Finally, there are syntactic and
morphological universals as will be exemplified in sectio
3- Greenberg's Syntactic Universals
As we have talked about Greenberg, his approach to language universals it would be
appropriate to mention his syntactic universals here and make some generalizations by the help
of his argument.
Universal 1.
In declarative sentences with normal subject and object, the dominant order is almost always
one in which the subject precedes the object.
Universal 2.
In languages with prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun, while in
languages whit postpositions it almost always precedes.
Universal 3.

8. Languages with dominant VSO order are always prepositions.
Universal 4.
With overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are
postpositional.
Universal 5.
If a language has dominant SOV order and the genitive follows the governing noun, then the
adjective likewise follows the noun.
Universal 6.
All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an alternative or as the only alternative
basic order.
Universal 7.
If in a language with dominant SOV order, there is no alternative basic order, or only OSV as the
alternative, then all adverbial modifiers of the verb likewise precede the verb.
Universal 8.
When a yes-no question is differentiated from the corresponding assertion by an intonational
pattern, the distinctive antonational features of each of these patterns are reckoned from the
end of the sentence rather than from the beginning.
Universal 9.
With well more than chance frequency, when question particles or affixes are specified in
position by reference to the sentence as a whole, if initial, such elements are found in
prepositional languages, and, if final, in postpositional.

9. Universal 10.
Question particles or affixes, when specified in position by reference to particular word in the
sentence, almost always follow that word. Such particles do not occur in languages with
dominant order VSO.
Universal 11.
Inverstion of statemnt order so that verb precedes subject occurs onl in languages where the
question word or phrase is normally initial. This same inversion occurs in yes-no questions only if
it also occurs in interrogative word question.
Universal 12.
If a language has dominant order VSO in declarative sentences, it always puts interrogative
words or phrases first in interrogative word questions; if it has dominant order SOV in
declarative sentences, there is never such an invariant rule.
Universal 13.
If the nominal object always precedes the verb, then verb forms subordinate to the main verb
also precede it.
Universal 14.
In conditional statements, the conditional clause precedes the conclusion as the normal order in
all languages.
Universal 15.
In expressions of volition and purpose, a subordinate verbal form always follows the main verb
follows the main verb as the normal order except in those languages in which the nominal
object always precedes the verb.
Universal 16.

10. In languages with dominant order VSO, an inflected auxiliary always precedes the main verb. In
languages with dominant order SOV, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb.
Universal 17.
With overwhelmingly more than chance frequency, languages with dominant order VSO have
the adjective after the noun.
Universal 18
When the descriptive adjective precedes the noun, the demonstrative and the numeral, with
overwhelmingly more than chance frequency, do likewise.
Universal 19.
When the general rule is that the descriptive adjective follows, there may be minority of
adjectives which usually precede, but when the general rule is that descriptive adejectives
precede, there are no exceptions.
Universal 20.
When any or all of the items (demonstrative, numeral, and descriptive adjective) precede the
noun, they are always found in that order. If they follow, the order is either the same or its exact
opposite.
Universal 21.
If some or all adverbs follow the adjective they modify, then the language is one in which the
qualifying adjective follows the noun and the verb precedes its nominal object as the dominant
order.
Universal 22.
If in comparisons of superiority the only order, or one of the alternative orders, is standardmarker-adjective, then the language is postpositional. With overwhelmingly more than chance
frequency if the only order is adjective marker-standard, the language is prepositional.

11. Universal 23.
If in apposition the proper noun usually precedes the common noun, then the language is one in
which the governing noun precedes its dependent genitive. With much better than chance
frequency, if the common noun usually precedes the proper noun, the dependent genitive
precedes its governing noun.
Universal 24.
If the relative expression precedes the noun either as the only construction or as an alternative
construction, either the language is postpositional, or the adjective precedes the noun or both.
Universal 25.
If the pronominal object follows the verb, so does the nominal object.
Universal 26.
If a language has discontinuous affixes, it always has either prefixing or suffixing or both.
Universal 27.
If a language is exclusively suffixing, it is postpositional; if it is exclusively prefixing, it is
prepositional.
Universal 28.
If both derivation and inflection follow the root, or they both precede the root, the derivation is
always between the root and the inflection.
Universal 29.
If a language has inflection, it always has derivation.

12. Universal 30.
If the verb has categories of person-number or if it has categories of gender, it always has tensemode categories.
Universal 31.
If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then the adjective always
agrees with the noun in gender.
Universal 32.
Whenever the verb agrees with a nominal subject or nominal object in gender, it also agrees in
number.
Universal 33.
When number agreement between the noun and verb is suspended and the rule is based on
order, the case is always one in which the verb precedes and the verb is in singular.
Universal 34.
No language has a trial number unless it has a dual. No language has a dual unless it has a plural.
Universal 35.
There is no language in which the plural does not have some nonzero allomorphs, whereas
there are languages in which the singular is expressed only by zero. The dual and the trial are
almost never expressed only by zer.
Universal 36.
If a language has the category of gender, it always has the category of number.
Universal 37.

13. A language never has more gender categories in nonsingular numbers than in the singular.
Universal 38.
Where there is a case system, the only case which ever has only zero allmorphs is the one which
includes among its meaning that of the subject of the intransitive verb.
Universal 39.
Where morphemes of both number and case are present and both follow or both precede the
noun base, the expression of number almost always comes between the noun base and the
expression of case.
Universal 40.
When the adjective follows the noun, the adjective expresses all the inflectional categories of
the noun. In such cases the noun may lack over expression of one or all of these categories.
Universal 41.
If in a language the verb follows both the nominal subject and nominal object as the dominant
order, the language almost always has a case system.
Universal 42.
All languages have pronominal categories involving at least three persons and two numbers.
Universal 43.
If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the noun, it has
gender categories in the pronoun.
Universal 44.
If a language has gender distinctions in the first person, it always has gender distinctions in the

14. second or third person, or in both. Universal 45. If there are any gender distinctions in the plural
of the pronoun, there are some gender distinctions in the singular also.
Here are some general principles that Greenberg mentions in his article Some Universals of
Grammar (1968) The universals here are closely connected with basic word order typology and
closely associated genitive construction.
A dominant order may always occur, but the opposite of it occurs only when a harmonic
construction is like wise present.
Another generalization that is made is that prepositions are dominant over postpositions, and
SV order is dominant over VS order. Further prepositions are harmonic with VS and disharmonic
with SV, while prepositions are harmonic with SV and disharmonic with VS. Also it should be
noted that prepositions are harmonic with NG and postpositions with GN. So generally it can be
said that all of the following are directly or indirectly harmonic with each other. Prepositions,
NG, VS,VO,NA. And there is a tendency to put modified before the modifier in this group. The
opposite type concerns the harmony bebtween postpositions , GN, SV, OV and AN.
From other universals it can be concluded that all languages have some freedom of word order
regarding subject and predicate as a whole; wheras only a small minority have variant order in
genitive constructions, and then almost always along wit other differences, not merely a
difference of word order. Within morphological constructions, order is the most fixed of all. On
the whole, then, discontinuous constituents arefar less frequent than continous ones.
Conclusion
As we have seen there are two major approaches which differ in terms of the aims in identifying
the universals and therefore whose methodology is different in many terms of their explanation
or the existence of the universals, the database they use and the degree of abstractness they
involve in the universals. What's more we have mentioned what kinds of language universals
occur and in what ways they are different from each other, and why these distinctions are
necessary. As a last section we listed some syntactic (word order based) universals proposed by
Greenberg and his generalizations on the languages depending on these universals. It is clear
from all these discussions that Universals occur and play an important role in determining the
grammar model of the languages of the world, no matter which approach you believe in and it is

15. also not surprising to have the idea that the two approaches do not contrast but co-work in the
sense that they examine different parts of the subject. .