Johan van der Auwera

1 Introduction
I 'm glad you like adverbs 1 adore them;
they are the only qualifications I really much respect.
Henry J ames
1. Typology, adverbial constructions, Europe
This book represents the results of the work done by the EUROTYP theme
group on adverbial constructions. It contains studies on the typology of adver-
bial constructions in the languages of Europe. Each of the bold faced phrases
needs a little explanation.
2. Typology
The studies collected here represent typology in the sense inspired by minences
grises such as Joseph Greenberg and Hansjakob Seiler and represented in the
textbooks by Ineichen (1979), Comrie (1981), Mallinson & Blake (1981) and
Croft (1990), in most of the work found in Moreno (1995) and Shibatani &
Bynon (1995), and in the journals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung
(Berlin: Akademie), Studies in language (Amsterdam: Benjamins), and Linguis-
tic typology (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). It is also the sense advocated by the
Association for Linguistic Typology, established in the wake of EUROTYP.
Typology attempts to describe and explain the restrictions on possible human
languages. For any one phenomenon the combinatorial possibilities of the units
of analysis are extremely high. Yet only a small subset of these possibilities is
realized in actual languages. It is this subset of possible language structures
that needs to be described as well as explained.
The typological enterprise must deal with a wide range of evidence and data,
a narrow range of descriptive means, and some five types of explanation.
i. A wide range of evidence and data
The evidence must be cross-linguistic, ideally arrived at on the basis
of a justified sample of the languages of the world or of the region
studied. Data sources are available language-specific grammatical de-
2 Johan van der Auwera
scriptions, in existence independent of the typological proj ect and
written in any sensible format, and proj ect-specific analyses of data
that have been produced spontaneously or that have been elicited with
questionnaires.
ii. A narrow range of descriptive means
Descriptions should be minimally abstract. Part of the descriptive task
is to classify constructions and languages as belonging to this or the
other type and to relate construction and language types to one an-
other.
iii. Five types of explanation
Cross-linguistic regularities may be purely accidental or they may be
explainable in terms of something else. There are five explanation
types. The phenomenon in one language and the phenomenon in
another language are similar or identical (are of a similar or identical
type) because
a. The two languages share another structural feature or they have two
other structural features, again similar, and these other features are
more basic and can thus be argued to explain the initial identity or
similarity the structural expl anati on;
b. they express a similar or identical meaning the semantic explana-
tion;
c. they ultimately derive from processing principles (either of language
production or understanding) the functional or psycholinguistic ex-
planation:
d. they derive from the same phenomenon in the common ancestor lan-
guage the genetic expl anati on;
e. they have arisen in a language contact situation with borrowi ng or
calquing the areal expl anati on.
I take explanation type (a) to be preliminary: the correlation between the initial
features and the more basic and hence explanatory features must ultimately
be made sense of in terms of something else, either semantic or functional/
psycholinguistic considerations explanation types (b) or (c). Expl anati on
type (d) is not itself the prime province of typology, but in being complementary
to the other types, it will make its appearance in typological discussions any-
way. For some linguists ( e. g. , Croft 1990; Masi ca 1976: 112; Fox 1995: 247)
explanation type (e) is not truly part of typology either, and it is correct that
one can find areal cross-linguistic work also under nomers like "areal linguis-
1 I ntroducti on 3
ti cs" (Masi ca 1976; Campbel l , Kaufmann & Smith-Stark 1986; Si mpson 1994),
"di al ectol ogy" and "geol i ngui sti cs" (Chambers & Trudgill 1980: 181- 204) and
"contact linguistics" (Ureland 1990). I take a broad view (cf. Haarmann 1976;
I neichen 1979: 90- 110; Comri e 1981: 197- 203), call the subject "areal typol-
ogy" and thus include it under "typol ogy".
Each of the three general features is well reflected in this book. For feature
(i) it suffi ces to gl ance at the acknowl edgments and reference lists of chapters
2 to 9. A good illustration of feature (ii) is the chapter by Hengeveld: it is the
one that one can most easily compare with co-called "generati ve" or "formal "
work and will then be prai sed or repri manded, depending on one's point of
view, for the paucity of the descriptive means (e. g., no empty categories, no
syntax-internal mechani sms). Feature (iii) is maybe best illustrated in my chap-
ter, as it exemplifies each of the five types of expl anati ons.
3. Adver bial const r uct ions
The notion of adverb or adverbial has not figured prominently in di scussi ons
of linguistic typology. Thi s has at least three reasons. First, the category itself
is elusive: it is not clear what the defining or prototypical features of adverbs
and adverbial s are, and consequently the borders with neighbouring categories,
especially, particle, but also adjective, adposi ti on, and conjunction, are unclear
too. Second, the category seems vast. There seem to be many different subtypes
of adverbs and adverbial s. Thi rd, as a partial result of the elusiveness and
vastness of the category, grammars often have little to say about matters ad-
verbial, and to the extent that typol ogi sts have to rely on grammars, they thus
have little to rely on. The scarcity of adverbialist typol ogy gave this project an
extra challenge and the book shoul d therefore be interpreted as a reconnais-
sance. It does not attempt to throw any new light on the definition of adverb
and adverbial , but merely presupposes a classical understanding of "adverb"
as the word-level adverbial expressi on, and of "adverbi al " as a syntactically
optional modifier of primarily nonnomi nal constituents (see Ramat 8c Ri cca
1994). The book similarly refrains from offeri ng an exhaustive classification of
adverbial subtypes. Nevertheless, in the chapters on sentence adverbs and on
adverbial subordi nators, we do find authors attempting to classify their respec-
tive subdomai ns, but then these are indeed only subdomai ns, and not the full
domai n of all adverbi al s.
The reconnaissance ai ms at eight domai ns. Three primarily concern adverbs
(chapters 2 to 4), one adverbial phrases (chapter 5), and four adverbial clauses
(chapters 6 to 9). In chapter 2, I study the adverbs correspondi ng to English
4 J ohan van der Auwera
still, longer in no longer, already and yet in not yet in their simple "temporal "
uses as in (1).
(1) J ohn is still at home.
I call these adverbials "phasal". "Adverbial quantification" is the topic of the
third chapter, written by J uan Carlos Moreno Cabrera. He investigates the
properties of adverbs like twice and adverbial phrases like on seven occasions,
as in (2).
(2) On seven occasions J ohn washed his hands twice.
In the fourth chapter Paolo Ramat and Davide Ricca study the full variety of
"sentence adverbs", exemplified by hopefully in (3).
(3) Hopefully J ohn will soon leave.
Chapter 5, written by Martin Haspelmath in cooperation with Oda Buchholz,
focuses on expressions of equality, like as tall as Maria in (4) and of similarity,
like like a nightingale in (5).
(4) Robert is as tall as Maria.
(5) Fatmir sings like a nightingale.
In chapter 6 Kees Hengeveld studies choices between dependent and indepen-
dent verb forms for the expression of adverbial clauses of Means, Simultaneity,
Cause, Reason, Explanation, Anteriority, Concession, Purpose, Potential Cir-
cumstance, Potential Condition, Negative Circumstance, Unreal Circumstance,
and Unreal Condition. The use of a dependent verb form for the expression of
Purpose is exemplified in (6); an independent verb used for Reason is found in
(7).
(6) I left early to catch the train.
(7) J enny went home because her sister would visit her.
In chapter 7 I gor' Nedjalkov looks at a set of adverbial clauses, partially over-
lapping with that of Hengeveld, and investigates the properties of specifically
1 I ntroduction 5
adverbial types of dependent verb forms, called "converbs", such as the form
citaja in (8).
(8) Russian
Citaja knigu, ona ela.
reading book she ate
'Reading the book she was eating.'
Yet a third set of partially overlapping adverbial clause types is investigated by
Bernd Kortmann in chapter 8, with respect to the adverbial subordinators that
operate over these clauses, such as because in (7). In chapter 9, Martin Haspel-
math and Ekkehard Knig study the properties of concessive conditionals, such
as even if we do not get any financial support in (9).
(9) Even if we do not get any financial support, we will go ahead with
our project.
Chapter 10, written by Walter Bisang, takes another look at the eight do-
mains. It attempts to get some ideas on the potential universal character of the
findings based on European languages by checking them against the situation
in some languages of the Far East, especially Chinese and J apanese, but also
Khmer, Thai, and Vietnamese. Chapter 11 attempts to find generalizations that
cut across the domains; the generalizations will turn out to have an areal char-
acter.
The book was to contain two further chapters, but the work was not finished
in time and should, in due course, appear elsewhere. Thomas Mller-Bardey
conducted research on spatial prepositions and cases, the realm of meanings
they cover, their morphological make-up and markedness relations. Hartmut
Haberland studied expressions of repetition, revision, and reversal, more par-
ticularly the choice between adverbial strategies, as with back and again in
(10), and preverbal ones, as with re- in (11).
(10) J ohn sent the book again/back.
(11) The team replayed the match.
The work done for the project is furthermore reflected in many other publi-
cations, the most prominent ones being Haspel math & Knig's Converbs in
cross-linguistic perspective (1995) and Kortmann's Adverbial subordinators in
the languages of Europe (1994 and 1997).
6 Johan van der Auwera
4. Europe
It is not clear what constitutes "a language of Europe". For the purpose of the
adverbialist proj ect and thus also of this book, we composed a list of languages
largely based on genetic information as presented by Ruhlen (1991), geographi-
cal information as found in Gri mes (1988) and Mosely & Asher (1994), and
other lists circulating within the EUROTYP proj ect (esp. Bakker et al. n. d.).
Our list, comprising one hundred and forty five languages, is provided in Ta-
ble l .
1
The first column describes the genetic affiliation, the second one lists the
languages discussed in this book, and the third one the remaining languages. A
number following the family name refers to the number of languages within
that family.
In some chapters older stages of languages are discussed, other than those
listed as separate languages in Table 1. One chapter discusses Upper Sorbian
separately and some discuss dialectal variation, be it minimally (esp. Belgian
Dutch or Flemish, Piedmontese, Swiss German) .
Table 1. The languages of Europe
WEST CENTRAL SEMI TI C (2)
Aramai c (1)
Arabo-Canaanite (1)
ALTAIC (12)
Turkic (11)
Assyrian
Maltese
Common Turkic (10)
Western (6)
Bashkir (1)
Kumyk-Karachai (3)
Bashkir
Karaim, Karachai-
Balkar, Kumyk
Tatar Tatar (2)
Southern (3)
Gagauz (1)
Azerbaijani (1)
Gagauz
Azerbaijani
Crimean Tatar
Turkish (1)
Central (1)
Turkish
Nogai
Chuvash
Kalmyk
Bol gar( l )
Oirat-Kalmyk (1)
CAUCASI AN (38)
North
Northeast (29)
Daghestan (26)
1 I ntroduction 7
Table 1 (conti nued)
Lezgian (10) Agul , Archi , Budukh,
Khi nal ug, Lezgi an,
Rutul , Tabasaran,
Tsakhur
Kryts, Udi
L ak-Dargwa (2) Dargwa, Lak
Avaro-Andi -Tsez (14) Avar, Bezhta, Bagval al , Andi , Akhvakh,
Botl i kh, Godoberi , Chamal al , Hi nukh,
Hunzi b, Tsez Karata, Khvarshi ,
Ti ndi
Nakh (3) Chechen Bats, I ngush
Northwest (5)
Ubykh (1) Ubykh
Ci rcassi an (2) Adyghe, Kabardi an
Abkhaz-Abaza (2) Abaza, Abkhaz
South (4)
Georgi an (1) Georgi an
Svan (1) Svan
Zan (2) Laz, Megrel i an
I NDO- EUROPEAN (74)
Germani c (16)
West (7)
Conti nental (4) Dutch, German,
Y iddish
L uxembourgeoi s
North Sea (3) Engl i sh, Fering, Frisian
North (6)
West (3) Faroese, I cel andi c,
Norwegi an
East (2) Dani sh, Swedish
Runi c (1)
East (3) Gothi c Burgundi an, Vandal i c
I talic (23)
Lati no-Fal i scan (20)
Romance (18)
Conti nental (17)
Western (13) Catal an, French, Friu- Dal mati an, Franco-
l i an, Gal i ci an, I tal i an, Provencal , Ladi n,
Occi tan, Portuguese, Mozarabi c
Romansh, Spani sh
Eastern (4) Arumani an, Rumani an I stro-Rumani an,
Megl eno-Rumani an
Sardi ni an (1) Sardi ni an
Lati n (1) Lati n
Faliscan (1) Faliscan
Osco-Umbri an (3) Osci an, Umbri an,
Sabellian
8 J ohan van der Auwera
Table 1 (continued)
Balto-Slavic (17)
Baltic (3)
East (2)
West (1)
Slavic (14)
East (3)
West (6)
North (3)
Central (1)
South (2)
South (5)
Greek (3)
I ndo-I ranian (5)
I ranian (4)
Western (3)
West Scythian (1)
Romani (1)
Armenian (2)
Albanian (1)
Celtic (7)
I nsular (6)
Goidelic (3)
Brythonic (3)
Continental (1)
URALI C (17)
Samoyed (1)
Finno-Ugric (16)
Finnic (14)
Permic (2)
Volgaic (2)
North Finnic (10)
Ugric (2)
Hungarian (1)
Ob-Ugric (1)
BASQUE (1)
ETRUSCAN (1)
Latvian, Lithuanian
Old Prussian
Belorussian, Russian,
Ukrainian
Polish Kashubian, Polabian
Sorbian
Czech, Slovak
Bulgarian, Macedo-
nian, Old Church
Slavonic, Serbian/
Croatian, Slovene
Classical Greek, Greek Tsakonian
Kirmanji, Talysh, Tati
Ossetic
Romani
Armenian
Albanian
Classical Armenian
Irish, Manx, Scottish
Gaelic
Breton, Welsh Cornish
Gaulish
Nenets
Komi, Udmurt
Mari, Mordvin
Estonian, Finnish, Olonets
I ngrian, Karelian,
Livonian, Ludic, Sami,
Votian, Vepsian
Hungarian
Mansi
Basque
Etruscan
1 0 Johan van der Auwera
All in all the book thus makes statements about some one hundred and ten
European languages. The maj ority of these are spoken at the moment. Map 1
(largely due to Marti n Haspelmath) indicates the approxi mate location of the
speakers of these languages. Not every chapter discusses all of these one hun-
dred and ten languages. To increase both the unity of the book and the predic-
tive power of the statements, we defined various samples with the method
outlined in Ri j khof f et al. (1993). Thi s method yields "variety sampl es", i. e. ,
samples that are geared towards maxi mal variety. It attempts to avoid a genetic
bias by including for any area all the phyla (including single language phyla or
language isolates) and for any such phylum the number of languages is propor-
tional to the linguistic diversity reflected by the graph-theoretic structure of the
genetic language tree, measured for depth and width. Thi s method was applied
to the languages listed in Tabl e 1 and classified for genetic affiliation according
to Ruhlen (1991). For any choi ce left open by this method, languages were
chosen that were not adj acent and for which the group was likely to have
specialist knowledge. For instance, in the sample given in Tabl e 2, the method
makes us choose two Germani c languages which have to be taken from dif-
ferent subfamilies, of which there are three (West, North, and East). In the
sample in Table 2 one finds Dutch (West) and Danish (North): they are not
spoken in adj acent areas and competence was available in the group. Instead of
Danish no other North Germani c language was possible, for the group lacked
immediate (near-)native access. For German there was a lot of competence in
the group, but it was excluded as a representative of West Germani c, because
it is spoken in an area adj acent to the Danish language area. Lack of native
access also excluded Gothi c as an East Germani c language choice.
Every author tried to include the languages of what is called the "mi ni mal
sampl e", given in Table 2. Thi s minimal sample theoretically consists of 25
languages, but because there are no interesting data for Etruscan and for Osco-
Umbri an languages, it actually consists of 23 languages. The method does not
allow for gaps to be filled up by other languages. The number between paren-
theses in the first column indicates the number of languages the method makes
us choose from that phylum or family.
The same method also yielded samples for 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 languages.
Only the last t wo make an appearance in the book and are given in Tabl e 3.
The number between parentheses in the first column indicates the number of
languages the method allows for respectively the 45 and 50 language sample.
Authors were not restricted to these sample languages, but those authors
most commi tted to the sampling method (van der Auwera, Moreno, Ramat
and Ri cca, and Hengeveld) separated statements based on the sample languages
from other statements.
1 Introduction 11
Table 2. The minimal sample, 25 languages
WEST CENTRAL SEMI TI C (1)
ALTAIC (3)
Turkic (2)
Common Turkic (1)
Bolgar (1)
Oirat-Kalmyk (1)
CAUCASI AN (4)
North (3)
Northeast (2)
Daghestan (1)
Nakh (1)
Northwest (1)
South (1)
I NDO-EUROPEAN (13)
Germanic (2)
West (1)
North (1)
Italic (3)
Latino-Faliscan (2)
Romance (1)
Latin (1)
Osco-Umbrian (1)
Balto-Slavic (2)
Baltic (1)
Slavic (1)
Greek (1)
I ndo-I ranian (2)
I ranian (1)
Romani (1)
Armenian (1)
Albanian (1)
Celtic (7)
I nsular (1)
URALI C (2)
Samoyed (1)
Finno-Ugric (1)
BASQUE (1)
ETRUSCAN (1)
Maltese
Turkish
Chuvash
Kalmyk
Lezgian
Chechen
Abkhaz
Georgian
Dutch
Danish
Spanish
Latin
Lithuanian
Russian
Greek
Ossetic
Romani
Armenian
Albanian
Irish
Nenets
Finnish
Basque
The cross-linguistic statements f ound in this book are of t wo types. Some
are generalizations that are claimed to hol d for all or for a large number of the
languages of Europe. Fol l owi ng a usage heard in the EUROTYP Adverbials
group since 1990 and appearing in print in Kortmann (1994), some authors call
12 J ohan van der Auwera
Table 3. Samples for 45 and 50 languages
45 50
WEST CENTRAL SEMI TI C (2/2)
Aramaic (1/1)
Arabo-Canaanite (1/1)
ALTAIC (4/5)
Turkic (3/4)
Common Turkic (2/3)
Western (1/1)
Southern (1/1)
Central (0/1)
Bolgar (1/1)
Oirat-Kalmyk (1/1)
CAUCASIAN (8/9)
North (5/6)
Northeast (3/4)
Daghestan (2/3)
Lezgian (1/)
Lak-Dargwa (0/1)
Avaro-Andi-Tsez (1/1)
Nakh (1/1)
Northwest (2/2)
Circassian (1/1)
Abkhaz-Abaza (1/1)
South (3/3)
Georgian (1/1)
Svan (1/1)
Zan (1/1)
I NDO-EUROPEAN (25/27)
Germanic (5/6)
West (2/2)
Continental (1/2)
North Sea (1/1)
North (2/3)
West (1/1)
East (1/1)
Runic (0/1)
East (1/1)
Italic (6/6)
Latino-Faliscan (5/5)
Romance (3/3)
Continental (2/2)
Western (1/1)
Eastern (1/1)
Sardinian (1/1)
Assyrian
Maltese
Karachai-Balkar
Turkish
Chuvash
Kalmyk
Lezgian
Tsez
Chechen
Kabardian
Abkhaz
Georgian
Svan
Laz
Dutch
English
Faroese
Danish
Gothic
Spanish
Rumanian
Sardinian
+ Nogai
+ Dargwa
1 Introduction 13
Table 3. (continued)
45 50
Latin (1/ 1) Latin
Faliscan (1/ 1) -
Osco-Umbrian (1/ 1) -
Balto-Slavic (5/ 6)
Baltic (2/ 2)
East (1/ 1) Lithuanian
West (1/ 1) Old Prussian
Slavic (3/ 4)
East (1/ 1) Russian
West (1/ 2)
North (1/ 1) Polish
South (0/ 1) + Czech
South (1/ 1) Bulgarian
Greek (1/ 1) Greek
Indo-Iranian (3/ 3)
Iranian (2/ 2)
Western (1/ 1) Kirmanji
West Scythian (1/ 1) Ossetic
Romani (1/ 1) Romani
Armenian (1/ 1) Armenian
Albanian (1/ 1) Albanian
Celtic (3/ 3)
Insular (2/ 2)
Goidelic (1/ 1) Irish
Brythonic (1/ 1) Welsh
Continental (1/ 1) -
URALI C (4/ 5)
Samoyed (1/ 1) Nenets
Finno-Ugric (3/ 4)
Finnic (2/ 2)
Permic (1/ 1) Udmurt
North Finnic (1/ 1) Finnish
Ugric (1/ 2)
Hungarian (1/ 1) Hungarian
Ob-Ugric (0/ 1) + Mansi
BASQUE (1/ 1) Basque
ETRUSCAN (1/ 1) -
these generalizations "Euroversals". Authors most committed to the sampling
method base them only on the variety samples giyen in Tables 2 and 3 or slight
variations thereof. Since they are hypothesized to hold for all or for most of
the languages of Europe, they are also offered as hypotheses, however tentative,
14 J ohan van der Auwera
of the world's languages. The second type of cross-linguistic hypothesis con-
cerns areal phenomena. For all authors, they are based on as many languages
as possible of as many areas as possible. They document large linguistic areas,
like Standard Average European, as well as smaller ones, like the Balkan
Sprachbund.
The restriction to the languages of Europe affects the two types of cross-
linguistic statements in a different way. To the extent that the hypotheses about
the world's languages are truly based on European data, these hypotheses must
be considered very weak. Universalist hypotheses is the business of worldwide
typology. To do the latter, one needs a sample of the world's languages and in
this sample Europe's languages make a very modest appearance. This is not to
deny that some of the Euroversals offered in this book might turn out to be
universals anyway. The ones that have the best chance are likely to be based
on a sensible semantic or functional analysis of some phenomenon, rather than
on any data specifically found in Europe. Whereas the worldwide typology of
the eight adverbialist issues must remain a task for the future, our book never-
theless makes a modest first step. In chapter 10, Walter Bisang assesses at least
some would-be universal Euroversals against the background of South East
Asian languages. Of course, he cannot vindicate any universals, he can only
show that they are or are not falsified by one or more South East Asian lan-
guages.
The areal statements in this book tend to be much stronger. This is due to
the fact that they all concern areas properly included within the Europe of the
one hundred and forty languages that have been investigated and are thus based
on data from both inside and outside any area set off by a construction or
language type. The importance of the areal component in this book is in tune
with the present development of the field of typology at large. Typologists are
becoming increasingly aware of the areal bias of their data and of the impor-
tance of contact-instigated convergence. This development can be witnessed
both in the typology of the world, e. g., in Dryer (1989) and Nichols (1992),
and in that of Europe, e. g., in Bernini 8c Ramat (1992, 1996) and in Bechert,
Bernini & Buridant (eds.) (1990). In fact, the latter publication sets a part of
the agenda of the EUROTY P project as a whole. It calls for a large scale and
detailed investigation of Whorf's notion of "Standard Average European"
(Whorf 1941). In this volume, van der Auwera, Ramat & Ricca, Haspelmath
with Buchholz, Kortmann, and Haspelmath & Knig address this task explic-
itly, and while Hengeveld does not do so, his results can be interpreted as
having a direct bearing on this issue too. Consequently, it will be an i mportant
element of the conclusion of this book to try to generalize over all these results,
reach a verdict on "Standard Average European", and if the verdict is positive
give it as much exactitude as our adverbialist studies allow for.
1 Int roduct i on 15
5. Unity and diversity
Chapters 2 to 9 are similar to each other in that they all attempt to do typology
(in the sense of 2) about adverbial constructions (listed in 3) about similar
samples and sets of languages (as explained in 4). Three features of unity may
be singled out for special attention.
5.1. Questionnaires
All of the chapters are to a large extent based on questionnaires. These are
always of the mixed type, i. e. , partly analytical and demanding a linguist to
furnish an analysis, and partly elicitative and demanding a native or specialist
to give or translate example sentences. These questionnaires were constructed
out of necessity. For all domains of research, it was felt that existing descrip-
tions (grammars, papers, dictionaries) did not contain the necessary informa-
tion. Much of this book is thus based on newly collected data. Thi s adds to
the interest value of the book. But it also makes many specific descriptions
highly tentative, especially those that are based on single informants that filled
out questionnaires without the assistance of the investigator who designed the
questionnaire.
5.2. Name maps
Chapters 2 to 9 all represent some of the generalizations in the form of name
maps of the type pioneered by Bernini &C Ramat ( 1992, 1996), and illustrated
in Map 2 below. These maps neither indicate coasts, rivers, mountains, cities,
nor even the borders between areas where languages are spoken. Abbreviated
language names symbolize the more or less imaginary center of an area where
the language is spoken. Similarities are symbolized by marking off areas with
lines of various types, with the typographical choi ce of the language names,
and/or with shading all of these methods are illustrated on Map 2. Repre-
senting similarities in this way does not yet imply any claim on the origin/
explanation of the similarities. The similarity may be genetic, as genetically
related languages are often spoken in contiguous areas. It may also be areal in
the sense that it is due to language contact, as geographically close languages
often influence each other, though again they need not. Finally, it may be due
to some other, more basic property of the languages in question, possibly re-
flecting identical meanings or explained by identical processing principles. Nev-
16 Johan van der Auwera
Ice
Sam
Kom
Nnts Mns

Chu /Bsh
Idm'
/
/
'/
/
Kbr ''. / - ^
Tskh BS
B z h t
Trk ^M Arm I
Krmn/ Asr
strikeout: Phenomenon 1
underline : Phenomenon 2
double underline : Phenomenon 3
: Phenomenon 4
: Phenomenon 5
1 : Phenomenon 6
/ / / : Phenomenon 7
double underline : Phenomenon 8
Map 2. Phenomena 1 to 8 in the languages of Europe (cf. van der Auwera (this vol-
ume: Map 1))
ertheless, the pri mary use of the name maps is to reflect a possible contact-
related convergence, either direct, resulting from contact between languages
of different or relatively distant genetic affi l i ati on, or i ndi rect, resulting from
languages, also of different or relatively di stant geneti c affi l i ati on, that were
excl uded from contact-i nsti gated change affecti ng other l anguages. No chapter,
except that by Kortmann and to a small extent al so the one by Ramat and
Ri cca, makes any expl i ci t hypothesi s about the cul tural or soci o-hi stori cal cir-
cumstances of the language contact.
The general i zati ons represented with name maps make no claim about lan-
guages that are spoken either in or out of an area marked off on the map, but
that do not themselves get represented with abbrevi ati ons. Bel orussi an, for
i nstance, is not included on Map 2, hence nothi ng is said about it. Of course,
given its genetic and geographi cal closeness to Russi an and Pol i sh, whi ch are
1: Phenomenon 1 3 : Phenomenon 3
2: Phenomenon 2 4 : Phenomenon 4
Map. 3. Phenomena 1 to 4 in the languages of Europe (cf. Hengeveld (this volume:
Map 7))
on Map 2, it is hi ghl y likely that the phenomena whi ch the map attri butes to
both Russi an and Pol i sh as wel l as to Li thuani an, Karai m, and Yi ddi sh, for
that matter occur in Bel orussi an, too. The l anguage names refer to the stan-
dard l anguages or if there is no standard, to just those vari eti es studi ed by the
author. Thus no cl ai ms are made about di al ects or about vari eti es that have
not been studi ed. The l anguage names furthermore refer onl y to the present-
day stages of the l anguages in questi on. More general l y speaki ng, the l anguage
maps will not contai n any exti nct l anguages, unl ess thi s is menti oned expl i ci tl y.
On all of the maps areas are marked off wi th defi ni te borders. Vi sual l y, thi s
usual l y means that the lines are cl osed. In some cases, the l i nes are i mpl i ci tl y
cl osed, as they "touch" the border of the map, as in Map 3. Such cl osures are
si gni fi cant rel ati ve to (i) whether the area marked off that way is i ncl uded in a
l arger area in whi ch rel evant l anguages are spoken, and (ii) the number of
l anguages both i nsi de and outsi de of the smal l er areas that have actual l y been
i nvesti gated. Consi der Map 2 agai n. The cl osure for the I beri an area that exhi b-
18 J ohan van der Auwera
its phenomenon 4 is relatively significant. I nside the area, all the l anguages
have been investigated. Outsi de of the area, to the West there are no relevant
l anguages; l anguages to be encountered westward are those of North Ameri ca,
and they are, of course, irrelevant. Second, to the North and the East, there is
a larger area with relevant l anguages, and many have been investigated, but
not all, the mai n absentees being Occitan and Franco-Provencal. To the South,
finally, we find Semitic, but it is unlikely that they are relevant note al so
that Mal tese is not linked up with the I berian area. Let us contrast this with
two relatively insignificant cl osures. Take, first, the eastern area exhibiting phe-
nomenon 4, i. e., the same phenomenon as found on the I berian peninsula.
Here the closure is highly insignificant. I nside this area, several l anguages are
missing, e. g., Bel orussian and Ukrai ni an in the Northwest, Tatar in the North-
east, and Gagauz in the Southwest. As to the outside, any closure on the eastern
fringe of Europe is relatively insignificant, the reason being that there are rele-
vant l anguages to the East and they have not been part of the investigation. A
second exampl e of a relatively insignificant cl osure is found in the Caucasus.
For any areal statement on Caucasi an l anguages in this book, there are usually
relevant l anguages both inside and outside of closures that elude the investiga-
tion. Thus the circumference lines marki ng the area compri si ng Nogai , Lak,
and Tabasaran in Map 2 for phenomenon 5 are relatively insignificant,
given my ignorance about the data for the many surroundi ng l anguages. I ndica-
tive of the same lack of data is al so the fairly arbitrary decision to limit the
clustering to just those three l anguages and not to extend the area southward
to include Lezgian and Azerbai jani .
The maps that are to be found in this book come in three subtypes, depend-
ing on the homogeneity of the areas marked off. In the exampl es of Maps 2
and 3 any l anguage found in a marked off area exhibits the feature(s) in ques-
tion. These lines are i sogl osses: they mark identity. Thi s is not the case for
what could be called "cluster maps" or "degree maps". In the exampl e of
Map 4 we are concerned with a l anguage or construction type characterized by
twelve features. In all the areas marked off we find l anguages that exhibit
subsets of these features, with the core area l anguages possibly exhibiting all
of the features. Assumi ng for simplicity's sake that the features are equal in
weight, the number of features can thus be taken to characterize the degree to
which a l anguage exhibits the type or, to use Masi ca's (1976) words, the "typo-
logical di stance" of the l anguage relative to a l anguage, if any, that woul d
realize all the features Masi ca, in one of the appendi ces to his (1976) book,
was possibly the first to suggest this feature counting method in typology. What
is i mportant to note here is that when for any subset of l anguages certain
features are absent, these features need not be identical for the l anguages con-
1 Introduction 19
: S 11 features : S 7 features
: Si 9 features : j features
Map 4. Language/construction type 1 in the languages of Europe (cf. van der Auwera
(this volume: Map 12))
cerned. The circumference lines thus do not mark identity and are not "iso-
glosses" one could call them "quantified isoglosses" or "isopleths" (cf. North
(1985) for a use of this term). The significance of isopleth closures is dependent
on the two conditions mentioned for isoglosses, but it is furthermore propor-
tional to the amount of features shared. Thus the probability that a language
is part of the Sprachbund defining its ideal type to have twelve features is
higher for a language that has eleven of those features than for a language that
has seven.
In a cluster map, the area marked off is typically not homogeneous, but
whether or not the homogeneity is there is not made explicit. In the third type
of map, the homogeneity is explicitly denounced. In Map 5, the lining and the
bold face are each designed to signal the presence of phenomenon 1.
20 Johan van der Auwera
Ice Nnts
Far
Fin
ScGI
Ir Mnx
Wis
Eng
Dut
Brt
Bsq
Fr
Prt
Spn Ctl
Ttr
Udm
Chu
Kim
Krch Che
Abkh Oss Lzg
Grg Tsz
Azb
Trk Arm
Tis
Asr
boldface: Phenomenon 1
Map 5. Phenomenon 1 in the languages of Europe (cf. Kortmann (this volume:
Map 6))
Thi s phenomenon is not necessary for the area in the mi ddl e (see Li thuani an,
Yi ddi sh, and Romani ), nor is it suffi ci ent (see Udmurt and A rmeni an), but it is
at l east typi cal .
I n its use of maps but al so in the use of questi onnai res our work is
remi ni scent of di al ectol ogy. I t is, of course, a far cry from the level of sophi sti -
cati on attai ned therei n, cf. the di al ectometri c work of Goebl (e. g., 1984). But
it seems that areal typol ogy has a good excuse: the data si mpl y are not good
and l arge enough to make di al ectometri c methods worthwhi l e.
5.3. Word order
A nother factor of uni ty is that nearl y all the chapters rel ate at l east some of
the adverbi al i st fi ndi ngs to another domai n of the grammar, i nvari abl y that of
1 Introduction 21
word order. For pronouncements on word order we ceteris paribus relied on
the then ongoi ng work of the theme group headed by A nna Si ewi erska, most
speci fi cal l y on the i ndex of word order properti es of the l anguages of Europe
(Si ewi erska, Ri j khof f & Bakker, 1997).
5.4. Diversity
Of course, the chapters al so di ffer a greal deal , e. g., in the wei ght they attri bute
to semanti c anal ysi s, the level of l anguage-speci fi c detai l , the amount of bi bl i o-
graphi cal references underl yi ng l anguage-speci fi c statements, the extent to
whi ch the author takes the sampl i ng method to heart, or the extent to whi ch
di achrony comes i n. Thi s di vergence is in part a refl ecti on of the research
i nterests of each i ndi vi dual author and/ or the nature of the domai n i tsel f. Tri vi -
ally, chapters di ffer in l ength. Thi s is to some extent a refl ecti on of the durati on
of the projects the chapters emanated from. Thus the project wi th the l ongest
research peri od yi el ded the l ongest chapter (Chapter 2, on phasal adverbi al s),
and the project wi th the shortest ti me span resul ted in the shortest chapter
(Chapter 7 on converbs).
Note
1. Differences between versions of our list, and between our list and other EUROTYP
lists primarily involve low level problems of classification, e. g., whether Upper and
Lower Sorbian or Eastern, Northern and Southern Sami are to be listed separately,
or whether Asturian is a separate Romance language. Such decisions have no implica-
tions for the results of the sampling described below. The one high-level classificatory
decision, with an implication for the sampling, is to consider Mansi as a European
language.
References
Bakker, Dik 8c Osten Dahl & Martin Haspelmath & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm &
Christian Lehmann & Anna Siewierska
n. d. EUROTYP Guidelines. (EUROTYP Working Papers.) Strasbourg: Euro-
pean Science Foundation.
Bechert, Johannes 8c Giuliano Bernini & Claude Buridant (eds.)
1990 Toward a typology of European languages. (Empirical Approaches to Lan-
guage Typology 8.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bernini, Giuliano 8c Paolo Ramat
1992 La frse negativa nelle lingue d'Europa. Bologna: II Mulino.
22 Johan van der Auwera
1996 Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. A typological approach.
(Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 16.) Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Campbell, Lyle 8c Terrence Kaufmann & Thomas C. Smith-Stark
1986 "Meso-America as a linguistic area", Language 62: 530570.
Chambers, J . K. 8c Peter Trudgill
1980 Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Croft, William
1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew
1989 "Large linguistic areas and language sampling", Studies in Language 62:
808- 845.
Fox, Anthony
1995 Linguistic reconstruction. An introduction to theory and method. (Oxford
textbook in linguistics.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goebl, Hans
1984 Dialektometrische Studien. Anhand italoromanischer, rtoromanischer und
galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF. 3 vols. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Grimes, Barbara F.
1988 Ethnologue. Languages of the world. (11th edition.) Dallas: Summer Insti-
tute of Linguistics.
Haarmann, Harald
1976 Aspekte der Arealtypologie. Die Problematik der europischen Sprach-
bnde. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard Knig (eds.)
1995 Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Structure and meaning of adver-
bial verb forms Adverbial participles, gerunds. (Empirical Approaches
to Language Typology 13.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ineichen, Gustav
1979 Allgemeine Sprachtypologie. Anstze und Methoden. (Ertrge der For-
schung 118.) Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kortmann, Bernd
1997 Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordina-
tors based on European languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology 18.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mallinson, Graham & Barry Blake
1981 Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Masica, Colin P.
1976 Defining a linguistic area. South Asia. Chicago & London: The University
of Chicago Press.
1992 "Areal linguistics", in: William Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
Linguistics. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 108 112.
Moreno Cabrera, J uan Carlos
1995 La lingtiistica terico-tipolgica. Madrid: Gredos.
1 Introduction 23
Mosely, Christopher & R. E. Asher (eds.)
1994 Atlas of the world's languages. London: Routledge.
Nichols, J ohanna
1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago & London: The University
of Chicago Press.
North, David
1985 "Spatial aspects of linguistic change in Surrey, Kent and Sussex", in: Wolf-
gang Viereck (ed.), Focus on: England and Wales. (Varieties of English
Around the World 4.) Amsterdam Sc Philadelphia: Benjamins, 7996.
Ramat, Paolo & Davide Ricca
1994 "Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/ radiality of the notion of AD-
VERB", Rivista di Linguistica 6: 289- 326.
Rijkhoff, J an . M. & Dik Bakker & Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel
1993 "A method of language sampling", Studies in Language 17: 169 203.
Siewierska, Anna & J an Ri jkhoff & Dik Bakker
1997 "Appendix 12 word order variables in the languages of Europe", in:
Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe. (Em-
pirical Approaches to Language Typology/ Eurotyp 201.) Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, 783- 812.
Ruhlen, Merritt
1991 A guide to the world's languages. Volume 1: Classification. With a post-
script on recent developments. London: Edward Arnold.
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Theodora Bynon (eds.)
1995 Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simpson, J . . Y.
1994 "Areal linguistics", in: R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics. Vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 206 212.
Ureland, P. Sture
1990 "Contact linguistics: Research on linguistic areas, strata, and interference
in Europe", in: Edgar C. Polome (ed.), Research guide on language change.
(Trends in Linguistics 48.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 471 506.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee
1941 "The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language", in: Leslie
Spier (ed.), Language, culture, and personality, essays in memory of Ed-
ward Sapir. Menasha, Wis.: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund, 7593. Re-
printed in: Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956). Language, thought and reality.
Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. by J ohn B. Carroll. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The M.I .T. Press, 134- 159.